ADMONITION ON THE EPISTLE REGARDING THE OPINION OF DIONYSIUS
A I. Although the account of time which we have followed until now cannot be discerned with certainty in this epistle, since Athanasius, burning with the sole zeal of defending Dionysius, hardly touches at all upon the condition of those times. Yet, there are not lacking conjectures that move us to place it after the treatise or epistle on the Nicene decrees. For they indicate, as read in no. 19, that it was written in approximately the same time, namely, that the Arians were then murmuring here and there against the Nicene synod, which fits the time of the preceding epistle perfectly. Likewise, a not insignificant argument is drawn from the manner of beginning this epistle: for, having employed almost the same words at the beginning, he directs this one, just as the previous one, to a man accustomed to attending to the controversies held between Catholics and Arians, whence it may be conjectured that both were sent to the same person. Indeed, we suspect that the occasion for writing this arose from the preceding one: insofar as Athanasius had there brought forward a passage of Dionysius to clarify the word *homoousion* against the Arians; this seems to have been the reason why the Arians attempted to twist the writings of Dionysius to their own opinion, though in vain. But these conjectures do not entirely remove every ground for doubt.
B II. The Arians, therefore, having been refuted everywhere by the arguments of Catholics, attempted to support their heresy with the authority of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, by bringing forward his letters written in the year 263: where, while he was refuting the error of the Sabellians, he had fallen into certain comparisons, by which, though contrary to the author’s intention, the divinity of the Word seemed to be harmed. However, having been accused on this matter subsequently before his namesake, Dionysius of Rome, he wrote certain books and an Apology to refute that accusation. From these latter writings of his predecessor, Athanasius extracts certain clear passages by which he very opportunely refutes Arian impudence and clearly demonstrates that Dionysius was a Catholic and most alien from the opinion of Arius.
C III. Furthermore, there are excellent passages of Dionysius to be found here, by which, thirdly, the accusation of Dionysius's adversaries in the third century is repelled; and fourthly, the slander and evil doctrine of the Arians are refuted; they possess equal force today to refute the new Arians, who attack the divinity of the Word with no less impiety than those ancients: and who market their own opinion as one commonly accepted in the prior centuries of the Church. For, to say nothing of other things, it is plain from those points contained in no. 19 that the words *ek tes ousias* and *homoousion* were already then used and common; so that for one speaking about the Son, to have impugned those words would be considered erroneous; to have omitted them, suspicious. But above all other sayings of Dionysius, this illustrious sentence, which should be inscribed in golden letters, stands out, by which all heresies arising against the Trinity are overthrown, no. 17: Οὕτω μὲν ἡμεῖς εἰς τε τὴν Τριάδα τὴν Μονάδα πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν Τριάδα πάλιν ἀμείωτον εἰς τὴν Μονάδα συγκεφαλαιούμεθα. "Thus we expand the Unity into the Trinity without division, and again we gather the Trinity without diminution into the Unity." This sentence, I say, which was hitherto missing in all the published Greek editions of Athanasius, now appears for the first time in Greek, restored by the faith of all the manuscripts. It had indeed collapsed because the words *Triada* and *Monada* ended in exactly the same way.
D IV. And truly, this is not the only sentence that had fallen out of the Greek text: for there are many others in this epistle omitted by the fault of copyists, because two clauses placed together happened to end in either the same word or a similarly ending word: all of which have now been happily restored by the help of the best manuscripts. And indeed there is nothing more frequent to be seen in the whole course of Athanasius's works than whole clauses omitted by this type of error. So that even from this, it may be clear to everyone how necessary a new edition of the works of this same holy doctor was.
V. Furthermore, the fact that Eusebius, who treats the deeds of Dionysius quite extensively, does not say even a word about this history; from this, indeed, the already common and all-too-firm suspicion of his Arianism is increased. He surely shrewdly kept silent about a history ruinous to his heresy: which other Arians, as Athanasius says, published more incautiously, to their own ruin. However, it appears from certain places in this epistle that Arius himself spread that rumor about Dionysius: unless perhaps Athanasius signifies "Arius" tropically for the "Arians": whom he also introduces as speaking as if he were still living; even though there is hardly any room for doubt that this epistle was written after Arius was dead.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. Regarding Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria: that he too held the same opinion against the Arian heresy as the Synod of Nicaea; and that the Ariomaniacs slander him in vain, as being of the same opinion as themselves.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. That Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, held the same opinion against the Arian heresy as the Nicene Synod: and that the Arians falsely accuse him of holding the same doctrine as they do.
A 1. You have signified to me, not long ago, your discussion among you against the enemies of Christ; for even before your love wrote to me of it, I had diligently inquired and learned these things, and had heard of them with great pleasure. I have therefore greatly approved your piety, which thinks so rightly concerning our blessed Fathers; and I have even now found the madness of the Arians to be as I had explored it. For since no argument consistent with their heresy is available to them, and no legitimate proof derived from the Holy Scriptures is found, they have hitherto always used impudent cavils and crafty sophisms; but now they have even dared to slander the Fathers: which thing is by no means foreign to their malignity, but is rather entirely proper to it. For if they have dared to meditate against the Lord and against His Christ, what wonder is it if they also slander the man of blessed memory, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as if he were of one mind and opinion with themselves? B For whomsoever among them they think to praise for the establishment of their own heresy, even if they call him blessed, they do not simply, but even gravely accuse him; just like certain robbers and men of indecent behavior who, when they are reproached for their own misdeeds, count honest men as their associates, falsely attributing their own character to the probity of those others.
2. If, therefore, they trust in the opinions and sayings of their . . .
have anything—whether taken from the Scriptures, or even some human argument that is pious for their defense. But if they have nothing of the sort, let them keep silent; for they will find nothing from any source that will not rather serve to refute them. From the Scriptures, on the one hand, is John saying: *In the beginning was the Word* (John I, 1), which they say *was not before He was begotten*; and David, on the other, singing from the person of the Father: *My heart has poured forth a good Word* (Ps. XLIV, 1), which they claim is merely a product of thought and that it has come to be from non-existence. Then again, with John proclaiming the Gospel that *All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made* (John I, 3), and Paul writing: *One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things* (I Cor. VIII, 6), and elsewhere: *For in Him all things were created* (Col. I, 16)—what boldness will these men have, and will they not rather incur shame, opposing the sayings of the saints when they say that the Creator of all things is a work, and that He in whom all things were made and subsisted is a creature?
B Not even any human reasoning that is pious is left to them for their defense. For who among men, whether Greek or barbarian, if he confesses God, will attempt to call Him a creature, or say that He did not exist before He was brought into being? Or what man, having heard from Him whom he believes to be the only God saying: *This is my beloved Son* (Matth. III, 17), and, *My heart has poured forth a good Word*, would dare even to say that the Word who has come forth from the heart of God has come to be from non-existence, or that the Son is a creature and not the proper offspring of Him who speaks? And again, who, hearing Him whom he believes to be Lord and Savior saying: *I in the Father and the Father in me* (John XIV, 10), and, *I and the Father are one* (John X, 30), would attempt to divide that which He has joined and kept undivided? C
3. These men, therefore, while they themselves perceive this, lacking any boldness in their own position, falsely attribute fictive opinions to pious men. Yet it would have been more fitting for them, being destitute of everything, and observing that they are interrogated on all sides and are at an impasse and agape, to repent rather, turning away from the path of error, and not to count among their number those whom they do not know, lest, being refuted also by them, they bring upon themselves greater shame. Perhaps, however, they will never wish to desist from such knavery; for they are in this respect emulators of D Caiaphas and his associates.
A For this, too, they have emulated those around Caiaphas, just as they have learned from them to deny Christ. For those men also, though the Lord had performed so many works by which He made known that He was Christ the Son of the living God, and though they were convicted by Him, maintained and spoke thereafter entirely against the Scriptures, and were unable even for a moment to look upon the refutations brought against them, but fled to the patriarch, saying: "We have Abraham for our father," thinking that in this they could cover their own folly. But neither did those men profit anything by saying this, nor will these men, by naming Dionysius, be able to escape the charge leveled against them—for the Lord refuted even those men for the things in which they were transgressing, saying: "Abraham did not do this." B And the same Truth will again refute these men, for they are acting impiously and lying, seeing that Dionysius the bishop did not hold the opinions of Arius, nor was he ignorant of the Truth. But both the Jews of that time and these new ones of today have inherited from their father the devil his madness against Christ. A great proof, then, that they are not speaking the truth but are slandering the man is the fact that he was never condemned for impiety by other bishops and cast out of his bishopric, as these men were cast out of the clergy, nor did he withdraw from the Church for the sake of defending a heresy, but he fell asleep in her piously, and his memory is to this day celebrated with the Fathers and is written down. For if he had held their opinions, or if he had not rendered an account of what he wrote, there is no doubt that he would by all means have suffered the same penalty as they did.
4. And these things were sufficient for the complete refutation C of the new Jews, who deny the Lord, slander the Fathers, and attempt to deceive all Christians. However, because they fancy that they have occasions for slandering the bishop from certain parts of his letter, come, let us examine these too, so that their empty babbling may be demonstrated from them, and that they might, even if late, finally stop blaspheming the Lord, and might confess, even if only with the soldiers, seeing the creation bearing witness, that truly this is the Son of God, and not a creature. They say, then, that the blessed D
A Dionysius said in his letter that the Son of God is a work and a generated being, and that He is not by nature proper to the Father, but alien in substance, just as the husbandman is in relation to the vine, and the shipwright in relation to the craft; for, in that He is a work, He did not exist before He was generated. And he wrote, though we ourselves also admit that such is his letter; but just as he wrote this, so also he wrote very many others, and they ought to have read those as well, so that from all of them, and not from the one alone, the faith of the man might be shown. For just as when a shipwright has built many triremes, his skill is judged not from one, but from all of them together. If, therefore, he wrote the letter they speak of simply as an exposition of his own faith, or if he wrote this one alone, let them accuse him as they wish; for in that case, there is truly an argument for accusation. But if the circumstances of time and person B compelled him to write such things, and he afterwards wrote other letters defending himself against what he was suspected of, they should have considered the causes, rather than rashly casting envy upon the man, so that they might not appear to be merely hunting for small words while passing over the truth which reveals itself in his other letters. For even a husbandman tends to the same kind of trees in one way or another, according to the quality of the soil; and one would not on that account blame him because he prunes one, grafts another, plants this one, and pulls up another; but rather, having learned the cause, he will admire the variety of the man's skill. If, therefore, they have not read his writings in a perfunctory way, let them mention also the subject of the letter; for thus their calumny and the wickedness of their intent will be revealed. Since, however, they either do not know or are ashamed [to say], it is necessary for us to declare it.
5. In the Upper Pentapolis of Libya, certain C bishops held the opinions of Sabellius, and they prevailed so much with their inventions that, little by little, the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches. When Dionysius learned this—for he himself had the care of those churches—he sent and advised the authors of this to cease from their wickedness; but as they did not cease, but rather continued in their impiety even more impudently, he was compelled by the necessity of their impudence to write such a letter, and the human [nature] of the Savior from the Gospels to set forth; so that, since they were acting more boldly, the Son…
A denying and attributing His human [attributes] to the Father, he might show that it is not the Father, but the Son who became man for our sakes, and [thereby] persuade the unlearned that the Father is not the Son, and thus little by little lead them to the true divinity of the Son and the knowledge concerning the Father. This is the argument of the letter, and for this reason he wrote it thus, because of those who so brazenly wished to change the faith of the truth.
6. What similarity, then, is there between the heresy of Arius and the opinion of Dionysius? Or why is Dionysius cited like Arius, since there is such a great discrepancy between the two? The one is a teacher of the Catholic Church, while the other proved to be the inventor of a new heresy. Arius indeed, in order to set forth his own false doctrine, wrote the *Thalia* B in effeminate and ridiculous modes, imitating the Egyptian Sotades. But Dionysius wrote other letters, and he also made a defense concerning the matters for which he was suspected, and he appeared to think correctly. If, therefore, he writes things contrary to himself, let them not drag him into their own company; for he would not be trustworthy in this regard. But if, having written the letter to Ammonius and having fallen under suspicion, he then purified himself for the sake of removing that [suspicion], and after the defense did not change his opinion, it would be manifest that he wrote even the things that were under suspicion in accordance with an economy; nor ought the things written and done according to an economy to be taken in a malignant sense and distorted toward the C private desire of each one. For even a physician often applies to certain wounds those remedies which do not seem appropriate to some, as he himself knows, having no other goal than health. This is also the way of a prudent teacher: to adapt himself and to speak according to the character of those being taught, until he has brought them into the way of perfection.
7. But if they accuse him for the sole reason that he wrote thus (for the arguments which the Arians borrow from him are truly accusations), what, I ask, will they do if they hear the great and blessed apostles speaking in the Acts, Peter saying with these words: D "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you yourselves know:"
A Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; and again: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole." And as Paul explains at Antioch in Pisidia, B saying: "God removed Saul and raised up unto them David to be their king, to whom also he gave testimony, saying: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." And again at Athens: "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Or if they hear that great martyr Stephen saying: D "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." For it is time now for them to become even more bold and to say—for nothing is too daring for them—that even the apostles themselves held the views of Arius, since they proclaim that Christ was a man from Nazareth, and that he was passible.
8. Since they imagine such things, did the apostles use these words because they believed Christ was only a man and nothing more? God forbid! Let no such thought ever enter anyone’s mind. But they, as wise architects and stewards of the mysteries of God, did not handle the matter without a legitimate cause. For the Jews of that time, since they were in error themselves C and were leading the Gentiles into error, thought Christ was merely a man coming from the seed of David, just like the other children born of David, and they did not believe that he was God, nor that the Word was made flesh. For this reason, with great prudence, the blessed apostles first explained the human nature of the Saviour to the Jews, so that, once they had fully persuaded them through the manifest and conspicuous miracles that Christ had indeed come, they might lead them from there to believe in his divinity, by demonstrating his works
A that they are not of man but of God. Indeed, Peter, while calling Christ a passible man, immediately subjoined: "This is the Author of life"; and in the Gospel he confesses: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And in his Epistle he calls Him the shepherd of souls, and Lord of himself as well as of the angels and powers. Again, Paul, who says that Christ is a man from the seed of David, writes in his Epistle to the Hebrews: "Who is the radiance of the glory and the stamp of his substance"; and to the Philippians: "Who, being in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God." But as for naming B Him the Author of life, and Son of God, and radiance, and stamp, and equal to God, and Lord, and shepherd of souls, what else could this mean than that the Word of God—through whom all things were made, and who is indivisible from the Father, just as the radiance is to the light—was in the flesh?
9. Dionysius himself, being tutored by the apostles—for when the heresy of Sabellius had already crept in, he was compelled, as I said, to write such an epistle, and to cast against them the words spoken about the Savior in a humble and human manner, in order that, by cutting those men off through these human references to prevent them from saying that the Father is the Son, he might pave an easier way for them toward the teaching concerning the divinity of the Son, when in subsequent epistles he speaks of Him from the Scriptures as Word, Wisdom, Power, Vapor, and Radiance of the Father. In these letters written for his own defense, he speaks openly of the faith and confesses his piety toward Christ. Therefore, just as the apostles are not to be blamed for the words they uttered concerning the humanity of the Lord (for the Lord indeed became man), but are rather worthy of admiration for their prudent dispensation and teaching adapted to the time; so Dionysius is not to be considered an Arian on account of the letter to Euphranor and Ammonius C written against Sabellius. For even if he used humble words and examples, these are derived from the Gospels; and he has a legitimate reason for writing them, namely the bodily advent of the Savior, on account of which these and similar things were written. For just as He himself is the Word of God, so afterward "the Word became flesh"; and, "In the beginning was the Word."
A The Virgin, at the completion of the ages, had Him in her womb, and the Lord became man. And one is the subject indicated by both expressions; for "The Word became flesh." The statements made concerning His divinity and His incarnation hold a meaning proper and suitable to each of the things spoken of. He who describes the human aspects of the Word knows also of His divinity; and he who explains His divinity is not ignorant of the things proper to His incarnate B arrival. But like an expert and reputable money-changer, distinguishing among individual things, he will walk in the straight path of piety. Thus, when he speaks of Him weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, shows weeping as part of His humanity, but he raises Lazarus as God. And he knows that He is hungry and thirsty bodily, but divinely satisfies five thousand with five loaves; and he knows that the human body lies in the tomb, but he is not ignorant that the same body is raised by the Word Himself, as the body of God.
10. Dionysius, teaching these things, wrote in his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius concerning what was said humanly about the Savior, for the sake of refuting C Sabellius: "For those things spoken of Him humanly are: 'I am the vine, the Father is the vine-dresser'; and, 'Being faithful to Him who made Him'; and, 'He created'; and, 'Having become so much better than the angels.'" He was not ignorant, however, of: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me"; and, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." For we know him to have written these things in other letters, and indeed, writing these things there, he also made mention of the human aspects of the Lord. For just as, "Being in the form of God, He did not count it a prize to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant"; and, "Being rich, He became D poor for our sake"; so, while the accounts concerning His divinity are exalted and rich, there are also lowly and poor expressions concerning His incarnate arrival. That these things were spoken humanly concerning the Savior, it is fitting to consider from the following: the vine-dresser is external to the vine in essence, but the branches are of the same essence, kindred, and indivisible from the vine, and they possess one and the same origin, both they and the vine itself. And as the Lord said, He Himself is the vine, we are the branches. If, therefore, the Son is consubstantial with us, and
besides being that which we are, He is also the Word of the Father, while we were created from the earth and are descendants of Adam, then this saying ought not to be referred to the divinity of the Word, but rather A to His human advent. For the Savior Himself said: *I am the vine, you are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman.* For as regards the body, we are of the same kind as the Lord, and for this reason He said: *I will declare thy name unto my brethren.* And just as the branches are consubstantial with the vine and come forth from it, so we, having bodies of the same nature as the body of the Lord, receive from His fullness, and we have that body as a root for the resurrection and salvation. The Father, moreover, is called the husbandman; for He Himself, through the Word, cultivated the vine, which is the humanity of the Savior B, and He Himself, through this same Word, prepared for us the way to the kingdom; and *no one comes to the Lord except the Father draw him* to Him.
11. Since this is the proper interpretation of this opinion, it is most fittingly written concerning this vine: *He who is faithful to Him who made Him*; and, *Being made so much better than the angels*; and, *He created*. For at the time when He took that which He had to offer on our behalf—and this was the body from the Virgin Mary—then it is written that He was created, made, and fashioned; for such expressions are appropriate to men. Yet it is not the case that after assuming the body He became better than the angels, lest He be thought to have been C inferior or equal to them before; but rather, Paul, writing to the Jews and comparing the human ministry of the Lord with the ministry of Moses, said: *Being made so much better than the angels*; for the law was announced through angels; because the law was given through Moses, but grace and the gift of the Spirit came through Jesus Christ. And at that time the law was announced from Dan even to Beersheba; but now *their sound has gone out into all the earth*, and the nations worship Christ, and through Him they know the Father. Therefore, those things were written about the Savior in a human sense, and it is not otherwise. D
12. A Ergone Dionysius, as the enemies of Christ boast, when he writes of the human elements of the Son, and thus speaks of Him as a work, indicates that he is one of the men? Or, because he said the Word is not proper to the essence of the Father, did he think Him to be consubstantial with us men? But he did not write thus in his other epistles; rather, he appears therein to think correctly, and is able by those very ones to shout against these people, saying: "I am not of your same opinion, O God-fighters; nor did our writings provide an occasion for impiety to Arius; but when writing to Ammon and Euphranor on account of the Sabellians, I made mention of the husbandman and the vine, and of other such utterances; B in order that, by demonstrating the human elements of the Lord, I might persuade them not to say that it is the Father who became man." For as the husbandman is not the vine, so He who existed in the body is not the Father, but the Word; and the Word, having become in the vine, was called the vine because of the bodily kinship with the branches, which we are. In that frame of mind, therefore, I wrote to Euphranor and Ammon; but against your shamelessness, I set forth the other epistles written by me, so that the prudent may know the defense contained in them, and my correct opinion concerning the faith in Christ. It was C right, then, for the Arians, if they had a sound mind, to think and consider such things concerning the bishop; for all things are plain to those who understand, and right to those who find knowledge. But since, not having learned the faith of the Catholic Church, they have fallen into impiety, and consequently have a darkened mind, they think that even right things are twisted, and they call light darkness, and darkness they think is light; it is necessary also to set forth the things from the other epistles of Dionysius, and the cause of them, for the sake of a fuller condemnation of the heretics; for having learned from them ourselves, so we think and write concerning the man.
13. The reason for which he wrote the other
A epistles is this. When Dionysius, the bishop, having learned about the matters in Pentapolis, and being moved by a zeal for piety—as I have already said—wrote against the heresy of Sabellius, the epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius, certain of the brethren from the Church, men indeed of sound doctrine, but not having inquired of him for what reason he had written thus, betook themselves to Rome and accused him before his namesake, Dionysius, the bishop of Rome. Upon hearing these things, he wrote in the same breath against those who hold the opinions of Sabellius, and against those who hold the views that Arius uttered when he was cast out of the Church. He declared that it was an impiety equal and directly opposite, both that of Sabellius and that of those who say that the Word of God is a creature, a work, and a thing made. B He also sent letters to Dionysius to indicate the matter for which he had been accused by them. He himself at once wrote back, and entitled the books *Refutation and Apology*. Here, I would have you observe the execrable workshop of the Christ-haters, and in what way they have moved these things to their own ignominy: for since Dionysius, bishop of Rome, wrote also against those who say the Son of God is a creature and a thing made, it is clearly evident that the heresy of the Arian Christ-haters has not been anathematized only now, but has long since been condemned by all. Then, when Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, cleared himself concerning the epistle he had written, it is manifest that he neither held the opinion which they ascribe to him, nor was he at all imbued with the perverse doctrine of Arius.
14. And it would indeed be enough for a perfect refutation of the Arians, C and for the demonstration of their calumny, that Dionysius cleared himself regarding those things which they even boast about; for he wrote not in a spirit of contention, but for the sake of defending himself and removing suspicion; and in refuting these accusations, what else does he do but lift the entire suspicion of the crime, and in this very act prove the Arian sycophants to be what they are? But that they may be even more confounded by those things which he wrote for his own defense, come, I will also set before you his own words; for you shall know from them that the Arians are men of perverse mind, and that Dionysius is foreign to their heterodoxy. For he entitled his epistle *Refutation and Apology*. D What does this mean, other than that he refutes those who are lying, and makes apology for those things which he wrote? He demonstrates that he did not write as Arius suspected, but that, of those things said in a human manner regarding the Lord,
A he did not fail to know that this is the Word and Wisdom, inseparable from the Father. Next, B he complains that his accusers do not report his statements in their entirety, but truncate them, and that they speak not with a good conscience, but with an evil one, according to their own desire; and these he likens to those who slandered the Epistles of the blessed Apostle. This complaint of his entirely removes all malicious suspicion. For if he considers the calumniators of Paul to be like those who slandered himself, he declares nothing else than that he wrote in such a way because he held the same views as Paul. Indeed, he meets every single word spoken by the accusers, and provides a solution to all their arguments; and whereas he had most clearly refuted Sabellius in those former writings, in these latter ones he declares his own faith to be entirely pious. Therefore, to those who maintain that this is the opinion of Dionysius: «God was not always Father; the Son was not always, but God was at one time without the Word, and the Son himself did not exist before he was begotten; but there was a time when he was not; for he is not eternal, but came to be later,» observe how he responds to these things. Most of his words, by which he examines the matters brought into question, or draws certain conclusions from the arguments he has presented, or refutes his opponents through interrogation, or condemns his detractors, these I shall pass over on account of the length of the discourses, and I shall set forth only those things which pertain to their accusation. Therefore, for the sake of clearing himself, in the first book, which is entitled *Elenchus and Apologia* [Refutation and Apology], having prefaced certain things, he wrote as follows:
15. «For there was never a time when God was not Father.» And in what follows he professes, «That Christ has always been, and that he has existed as Word, and Wisdom, and Power. For it is not the case that God was barren of these, and then afterwards begat the Son. Rather, the Son does not have his existence from himself, but from the Father.» And after a few words, he says again regarding the same subject: «Since he is the radiance of eternal light, he is himself also entirely eternal. For since the light is always existing, it is manifest that the radiance always exists; for it is understood to be light by the very fact that it shines, and it is impossible for light not to shine. Let us come again to the examples. If there is a sun, there is also radiance, there is also day: but if none of these exist, it is far from the case that the sun is present. If the sun were eternal, the day also would never cease: but as it is (for the matter is not so), when the sun begins, the day begins, and when it ends, it ends. But God is eternal light, which never began, and will never end. Eternal, therefore, is the radiance which shines before him and coexists with him, which is without beginning and ever-generated, shining forth from him, which is the Wisdom that says: *I was she in whom he delighted; and daily I rejoiced before his face, at all times*.» And again he adds, after a few words regarding the same, saying: «Since, therefore, the eternal...
A Father is, eternal is also the Son, light from light. For if there be a begetter, there is also a son; but if there be no son, how and of whom can he be a begetter? But both are, and they are always.» Then he adds these things again: «Since, then, God is light, Christ is the splendor; and since the Spirit also is [for the Spirit, he says, is God], consistently also Christ is called vapor: For, he says, he is the vapor of the power of God.» And from the second [book] again he says: «But only the Son always co-existing with the Father, and filled with the Existent One, he himself also is of the Father.»
16. These things having been spoken ambiguously, they needed an interpreter; but since he wrote clearly and frequently concerning the same things, let Arius gnash his teeth B, seeing his heresy being destroyed by Dionysius, and hearing what he does not wish, as he says: «God was always Father, and the Son is not eternal simply, but since the Father is eternal, the Son also would be eternal, and co-exists with him as the splendor with the light.» But they, even if they have only suspected Dionysius of holding the views of Arius, let them lay aside such blasphemy concerning him. For what kinship is there between them, when Arius says, «The Son was not before he was begotten, but there was a time when he was not,» whereas Dionysius teaches: «But God is eternal light, which neither began nor shall ever end; therefore, eternal light is set before us, and the splendor co-exists with him, beginningless and C everlasting, shining forth from him.» And indeed, against the other suspicion of those who say that because Dionysius names the Father, he does not name the Son; and again, when he says Son, he does not mention the Father, but divides and separates and partitions the Son from the Father; Dionysius answers and puts them to shame in the second book, with these words:
17. «Each of the names spoken by me cannot be separated or divided from its neighbor: I mentioned the Father, and before I brought in the Son, I signified him already in the Father: I brought in the Son, and even if I had not previously named the Father, he would have been implied in the name of the Son: D I added the Holy Spirit, but I also joined at once from whence and through whom he came.» But they do not know that neither is the Father alienated from the Son in that he is Father—for that name is the beginning of the conjunction—nor is the Son separated from the Father; for the Father is the name that denotes the union.
A In their hands is the Spirit, which can be separated neither from the One sending, nor from the One bearing. How, then, could I, who use such names, believe that these are separated and entirely divided from one another?" And after a few words he adds: "Thus do we extend the indivisible unity into the Trinity, B and gather the Trinity again, which cannot be diminished, into unity."
18. Hence, he again refutes in the first book his accusers who lied, saying that he had counted the Son among created things and that he was in no way consubstantial with the Father, with these words: "But where I said there were certain created and formed things to be considered, I brought forward their examples cursorily as being less useful, when I said: Neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the ship the same as the shipwright; then I dwelt upon things more appropriate and C more natural to the subject; and I explained more fully those things which were of more certain faith, with various examples I had thought out, which I also wrote to you in another letter, in which I refuted the lie they bring against me, as though I said that Christ is not consubstantial with God. For although I admit that I have not found this word anywhere in the holy Scriptures, nor read it, yet my arguments which follow, and which they have passed over in silence, do not differ from this sentiment. For I brought forward human offspring as an example, which is clearly of the same kin, saying that parents differ from children D only in this, that they themselves are not children: otherwise it would necessarily follow that neither parents nor children exist. But as I said before, because of present circumstances I do not have the letter with me; otherwise I would have sent you the very words I wrote at that time, or rather a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it when I have a copy of it. I remember, moreover, that I added very many similarities from related things. For I said that a plant sprouting from a seed or from a root is different from that whence it sprouted, even though it is entirely of the same nature, and that a river flowing from a fountain receives a different form and name; for the fountain is not called a river, nor the river a fountain, and both exist; and the fountain is as it were the Father
A, and the river is the water from the fountain. But they feign that they do not even see these and similar things written, but as it were go blind; and with two unconnected phrases, as if with stones, they attempt to pelt me from afar, ignoring that for obscured matters which need addition in order to be understood, not only do other examples often bring light, but even contrary ones. In the third book he says: “Life was born from Life; and as a river flowed from a fountain, and a brilliant light was kindled from an inextinguishable light.”
19. Having heard these things, who henceforth will accuse those B who suspect Dionysius of holding the Arian view of insanity? For behold, through these things he openly tramples upon his entire heresy with the reasonings of the truth. For the statement, “He was not before He was born,” and the statement, “There was a time when He was not,” he refutes by the metaphor of the effulgence; and by saying that His Father was never without offspring. That statement, moreover, which they make, “from non-existent things,” he refutes by saying that the Word is like a river from a fountain, and a sprout from a root, and a son from a parent, and light from light, and life from life. And as for their separating and dividing the Word from God, he repudiates that by saying that the Trinity, which can neither be divided nor diminished, is gathered into a unity. Furthermore, he openly rejects their claim that the Son is alien to the substance of the Father, when he says that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. On this account, one might also marvel C at the impudence of the impious; for while Dionysius, whom they claim held views equal to their own, says that the Son is consubstantial, they nevertheless buzz around him just like gnats, as if the synod had not rightly committed the word “consubstantial” to writing. For if they consider Dionysius their friend, let them not deny the doctrine of one who thinks as they do. But if they think that it was not rightly said, why do they boast of Dionysius, who says the very same thing, as thinking as they do? Especially since he does not appear to say these things in passing, but, having written other letters beforehand, he convicts those who falsely accused him of saying that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father; and he refutes those who thought that he had said the Word was a creature D, denying that he thinks as they suppose—but even though he uttered those words, he testifies that he said them for this sole purpose: to show that it is not the Father, but the Son, who clothed Himself with the created, fashioned, and made body; wherefore the Son is said to have been created, fashioned, and made.
A Indeed, since he had previously written 87 such phrases, he bids the Arians a long farewell, and demands a good conscience from his hearers; setting forth the difficulty, or perhaps the incomprehensibility, of the matters under investigation, so that they might not judge the words, but the intention of the writer 88; and especially when most things testify to his frame of mind. He himself, then, said: "I brought forward the examples of the plant and the husbandman 89 in a passing manner, as being less useful; but I dwelt on those that are more proper, and discoursed at greater length on the truer things." But he who says this shows that it is truer to say that the Son is eternal and from the Father, than that He is made; for by this latter word the bodily nature of the Lord is signified, but by the former, the eternity of His Divinity.
B Assuredly, in these matters he also asserts that those who brought charges against him—as if he did not speak of the Son as being consubstantial with the Father—were refuted by him, not lightly, but with wisdom and true demonstration, saying: "Even if I did not find this word in the Scriptures, yet gathering the meaning from the Scriptures themselves, I knew that, being Son and Word, He could not be alien from the essence of the Father." For that he does not think the Son is a creature or a work—for they have slandered him on this point too—he says thus in his second book: "If any of the calumniators, because I called God the maker and creator of all things, thinks that I also called Him the creator of Christ, let him mark that I first called Him Father, in which word the Son is already included. 90 For after having said that the Father is the maker, I added: 'Nor is He Father of those things of which He is the maker, if Father is properly understood to be He who has begotten'—for we shall examine the breadth of the title 'Father' in the following sections 91—'nor is the Father a maker, if the craftsman alone were to be called a maker.' For among the Greeks, the wise are also called makers of their own discourses; C and 92 the Apostle said, *A maker of the law* 93; and men are made makers of virtue or vice in their hearts, as God said: *I waited for it to bring forth judgment, but it brought forth iniquity.*"
21. Truly, let one who hears these things remember the divine oracle saying: *Whithersoever the ungodly turns, he vanishes 94.* For behold, in various ways turning themselves about day by day, the impious vanish, not having even in this a pretext against Dionysius. For he clearly teaches that there is no work, nor creaDture [that is solely of Him, but that the Son is not a creature].
A He blames, and at the same time heals, those who slander him as having called God a maker, in that they failed to notice he had first called God Father, in which name the Son is also inscribed. By saying this, he demonstrates that the Son is not of the number of things made, nor is God a maker, but that God is the Father of His own Word. And since some, through ignorance (or with a bad conscience), brought it against him that he had called God the maker of Christ, for this reason he apologizes in various ways, saying that not even thus could his own words be reproached: for he affirms that he used the name "maker" because of the flesh which the Word had assumed, which was indeed a thing made. "But if anyone should suspect that this was said of the Word, even in that way they ought to have heard it without a spirit of contention: for as I do not think that the Word is a thing made, nor do I call God a maker, but his Father; even if, when discussing the Son, I should casually call God his maker, even then the matter would not lack a defense. For B the wise Greeks call themselves the makers of their own books, even though they are also the fathers of their own books; while the divine Scripture calls us makers of the movements of the heart, when it calls us makers of the law, and of judgment, and of justice." Thus, from whatever side the matter is viewed, he clearly demonstrates that the Son is neither a created nor a made thing, and that he himself is a stranger to the perverse doctrine of the Arians.
22. C But let no Arian, nor anyone else, suspect him of saying that the Son so coexists with the Father that the names indeed are joined together, but the realities are most distant from one another, and that the Son has not always coexisted with the Father; but that from the time the Son came to be, from that time God was called Father, and henceforth coexists with Him, as happens among men. But let him reflect and remember the things said above, and he will see that the faith of Dionysius is correct. For while he says: "For there was not a time when God was not a Father," and again: "But God is eternal light, which never began, and will never end; therefore, the eternal radiance exists before Him, and coexists with Him, without beginning, and eternally begotten, shining forth from Him," it was right that no one at all should suspect such things D of him. 5 And the examples of the fountain and the river, and of the root and the
Spirit, and the vapor, shames those who fight against Christ and blather the opposite against him.
23. But Arius has also gathered this opinion for himself as if from a dung heap, and adds: "The Word is not proper to the Father, but there is one Word in God; B yet this Lord is strange and alien to the substance of the Father; and he is called Word merely by a mode of thinking, and is not by nature the true Son of God; but he is called Son also by adoption, as a creature." And while saying such things, he boasts among those who are ignorant of the truth, as if Dionysius also held the same opinion in this matter. See, I pray, what the faith of Dionysius was concerning these things, and by what power he opposes such wicked thoughts of Arius. For he writes in his first book as follows: C "It has been said before, indeed, that God is the source of all good things; and the Son is written to be the river flowing from Him; for the word is an emanation of the mind, and, to speak in a human manner, it is poured out from the heart through the mouth, becoming different from the word in the heart, and the mind rushing forth through the tongue. For the one remains after it has sent forth, and is as it was; D but the other, having been sent forth, flies off and is carried everywhere; and thus each is in the other, being different from the other; and they are one, while being two; for thus also the Father and the Son are one, and have been said to be in one another." And in the fourth book he says as follows: "For as our mind pours forth from itself the word, as the Prophet said: *My heart has poured forth a good word* (Ps. XLIV, 2); and each is different from the other, possessing its own place separated from the rest, the one dwelling and moving in the heart, and the other on the tongue and mouth; yet they do not stand apart, nor are they utterly deprived of one another, nor is the mind without a word, nor the word without a mind; but the mind makes the word, having appeared in it; and the word shows the mind, having come to be in it; and the mind is, as it were, the word remaining, and the word the mind rushing forth; and the mind changes into the word, and the word wheels the mind around to the hearers. And thus the mind is established in the souls of those who hear through the word, entering in along with the word; and the mind is, as it were, the father of the word, being by itself; the
A just as the Son, the Word, is of the mind: it is impossible for [the Word] to be before [the mind], nor was it ever brought into existence anywhere outside [the mind], but it blossomed forth from it. Thus, the Father, the supreme and universal mind, possesses from the beginning the Son, the Word, as His interpreter and angel.”
24. Arius either never heard these things, or if he heard them, the unlearned man did not understand them; for if he had understood, he would not have spread such lies about the bishop; nay, rather, out of an ingrained hatred for the truth, he would have attacked him with revilements, just as we have been attacked. For since he is an enemy of Christ, he most willingly persecutes those who think the things of Christ, as the Lord Himself foretold: "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (Jo. xv, 20). But if the patrons of impiety think that Dionysius agrees with them, let them write and profess the same things: let them write of the vine and the B husbandman, of the boat and the shipwright. And at the same time, let them confess also what he himself handed down for the sake of defending consubstantiality: namely, the sentiment in which he says that the Son is from the substance of the Father, as well as His eternity, the kinship of the mind with the word, of the fountain with the river, and the rest; so that even from the discrepancy of the things themselves they might know how he spoke of the former things by way of accommodation [εconomia], but of the latter as the reason of pious faith demands. And subsequently, by professing these things, let them repudiate their own contrary opinions. For what does the faith of Dionysius have in common with the malignancy of Arius? Does not Arius say the Word is merely according to a mode of thought, C while Dionysius says He is truly and by His nature the Word of God? And the one renders the Word foreign to the Father, while the other teaches that He is proper and indivisible from the Father’s substance, just as the word is from the mind, and the river from the fountain. If, therefore, anyone can divide and alienate the word from the mind, or separate the river from the fountain, and cut them off as if by a built wall; or if one dares to say the river is of a different substance from the fountain and demonstrate the water to be different from it; or to sever the splendor from the light and affirm the splendor to be of a foreign substance and not to proceed from the light, let him rave D with Arius; for such a man will appear not to possess even a human mind. But if nature itself knows these things to be indivisible, and that the product of them is proper to them, let no one hereafter think with Arius, nor dare to calumniate Dionysius; but let him rather admire, from these very things, both the perspicuity of his discourse and the correctness of his faith.
A 25. For as regards that insanity of Arius, which says that the Word which is in God is one thing, and that concerning which John speaks, "In the beginning was the Word," is another; and that there is one proper wisdom in God, and another concerning which the Apostle speaks, "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God"—Dionysius again opposes and refutes this false doctrine. Behold, once more, how he writes in the second book concerning these matters: "In the beginning was the Word; but the Word that put forth the Word was not the Word; for the Word was with God. The Lord has been created as Wisdom; therefore, He who sent forth Wisdom was not Wisdom—'For I was,' He says, 'that in which He was rejoicing.' Christ is Truth; but 'Blessed,' he says, 'be the God of truth.'" In this, he refutes both Sabellius and Arius, and shows both heresies to be equal in impiety: for neither is the Father of the Word the Word, nor is that which is from the Father a work, but a proper offspring of His substance. And again, the Word that has proceeded is not the Father; nor, again, is this Word one out of many, but He is the only Son of the Father, true and genuine by nature, who also now is in Him, and is eternally and indivisibly from Him. So also the Lord is Wisdom and Truth, and He is not a second to another wisdom; but He alone is He through whom the Father made all things, and in whom He established the various substances of things that have come to be; and through Him He is known to whomsoever He wills; and in Him He performs and accomplishes the providence of all things. For Dionysius acknowledges Him alone to be the Word of God. This is the faith of Dionysius; for I have written down a few things collected from his epistles, which are able to afford you an occasion to add more, and to the Arians a very great shame for their slander against the bishop. For in all things and in each C instance, through what he wrote, he has refuted their evil-mindedness and branded their heresy.
26. From these things, therefore, it is shown that the epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius was also written by him with another meaning, for the sake of economy; for his apology also shows this. And this argument is truly a persuasive basis for the refutation of the madness of Sabellius, so that he who desires to swiftly refute such persons should not make the starting point from those things which denote the divinity of the Word—that the Son is Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and that "I and the Father are one"—lest those men, misinterpreting what is well said, should procure for themselves a pretext for shameless contention, hearing that "I...
A and the Father are one," and "He who has seen me has seen the Father." But one should put forward the things said about the Saviour in a human manner, as He Himself has done; such as hungering, growing weary, and that He is the vine, and that He prayed and suffered. For the more humbly these things are spoken, by so much more is it demonstrated that it was not the Father who became man. For it is necessary that, when the Lord is called a vine, there also exist a husbandman; and when He prays, there be one who hears; and when He asks, there be one who gives. Indeed, such sayings far more easily demonstrate the madness of the Sabellians, because it is absolutely necessary that there be one who prays and another who hears, one who is the vine and another who is the husbandman. For as many words as are spoken as if to alienate the Son from the Father, these are said concerning Him by reason of the flesh, which He bore for our sake. For things that are created are by nature alien to God. Therefore, since He took on the nature of created flesh, as John says, "The Word became flesh," although He is by nature proper to and inseparable from the Father, nevertheless, by reason of that flesh, the Father is said even to be far from Him; for He Himself suffers the things that are proper to the flesh to be said of Him, so that it might be shown that the body was not of another, but was His own. And such being the thought, Sabellius will be the more quickly convicted, in that it is not the Father who became flesh, but His Word, who also redeemed that flesh and offered it to the Father. And when one has thus refuted and persuaded him, he will then be the more readily instructed concerning the divinity of the Word: namely, that He is the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Power, the radiance and the imprint. For it is necessary here again to understand that, since the Word exists, the Father of the Word must also exist; and since Wisdom exists, Her progenitor must also exist; and since the radiance exists, the Light must also exist; and thus that the Son and the Father are one.
27. Dionysius, knowing these things, wrote them; and by these he silenced Sabellius, and by these he overturned the Arian heresy. For just as the human qualities of the Saviour overthrow Sabellius, so also, against the Ariomanites, one must construct arguments not from human attributes, but from those which signify the divinity of the Word; so that they, too, misinterpreting the things spoken of the Lord on account of the body, might not think the Word to be such as we men are, and so persist in their own madness. But if they are taught concerning the divinity, they will condemn their own perversity, and, having more easily learned that the Word
flesh, these will furthermore distinguish what pertains to the human and what belongs to the godhead. Since these things are so, and Dionysius the bishop has been shown by his writings to be pious, what are the Ariomaniacs now to do? Whom will they further dare to accuse falsely, since they have been convicted of falsehood by the aforementioned? For it is necessary that they, having fallen from the foundation of the apostles and being possessed of a wavering mind, should seek a support, and finding none, should henceforth falsely accuse the Fathers. But no one will any longer put faith in them, even if they labor to spread slanders; for their heresy has been condemned by all: unless perhaps they choose henceforth to speak of the devil, for he alone agrees with them; nay rather, he himself is the one who suggested the heresy to them. Who then would henceforth call those whose leader is the devil Christians, and not rather diabolicals? So that they might be called not only enemies of Christ, but also diabolicals, unless perhaps they change their view, and deny the impiety they devised, and acknowledge the truth; for this would profit them, though it is fitting for us to pray thus for all who are led astray.
NOTICE ON THE EPISTLE TO DRACONTIUS
I. Dracontium, a monk and a leader of monks, having been appointed to the episcopacy of Hermopolis Parva, both that he might avoid the impending persecution, and because he feared to undertake so great an office, fled and hid himself. When this was brought to the attention of Athanasius, he strove to recall Dracontium to the office imposed upon him, and exhorted him to endure calamities for the sake of Christ and his flock. Then he brings forward the examples of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and the apostles, who had not refused to undergo the most grievous trials for the people of God. He likewise lists monks who, having been promoted to the episcopacy, bore that burden with praise and to the benefit of the peoples. That Dracontium complied with these admonitions of Athanasius is evident. For at the beginning of the persecution stirred up by the Arian George, while he was bishop, he was forced into exile. And having stayed for some years in the place of his exile, called Clysma, finally, after the death of Constantius, when peace was granted to the Church, he took part in the synod of Alexandria. But these things belong elsewhere.
II. That this epistle was written when Constantius's final persecution was imminent, and the solemnity of Easter was approaching, is suggested by a great many points of the same passage. Wherefore it seems it should be referred to the year 354 or 355. For the time of this epistle cannot be delayed beyond the year 355; for at the beginning of the year 356, before Lent, that immense Arian persecution began to rage. Nor can it have been written before the year 354: since only toward the end of the year 353, long after Lent, did the Arians openly machinate their snares and conspiracies against Athanasius and the Catholics. Therefore, it seems it must be assigned to one or the other year, 354 or 355: to which of the two it pertains, is uncertain.