Epistolae II Dionysii Episcopi ad SS Dionysium

LETTERS II OF DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, BISHOP, TO DIONYSIUS OF ROME, Or fragments of the work entitled Elenchus and Apologia. From the first book, For there was no time when God was not Father. And in the following (says Athanasius) he professes Christ always to be, as Word and Wisdom and Power. Nor indeed did God, when He had not begotten these, later beget the Son; but because the Son does not have being from Himself, but from the Father. And after a little concerning the Son Himself he says: Since He is the radiance of eternal light, He Himself is altogether eternal. For light always existing, it is manifest that radiance also always exists; for light is understood to be because it shines, and it cannot happen that light does not shine. Again let us come to examples. If the sun exists, radiance also exists, and day exists; if none of these exist, it is far from the case that the sun is present. But if the sun were eternal, day would never fail. Now, however (for the matter is not so), day begins with the sun beginning and ends with the sun ending. But God is eternal light, which neither began nor will ever fail. Therefore to Him shines forth and coexists an eternal radiance, which existing without beginning and always begotten, shines forth before Him, and which is that Wisdom which says, I was that which rejoiced, and I delighted daily before His face at all times (Prov. 8:30).

And a little later, continuing his discourse on the same subject, he says: Therefore, since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, light from light. For where the begetter is, there also is the offspring. But if there is no offspring, how and of whom can he be the begetter? Yet both exist, and they always exist. Therefore, since God is light, Christ is radiance. But since he is Spirit—for, it says, God is Spirit (John 4:24)—Christ is accordingly called vapor: for, it says, he is the vapor of the power of God (Wisdom 7:25). And again he says: But the Son alone, always coexisting with the Father and full of him who is, himself also is, since he is from the Father (from Athanasius, ibid., n. 17). From the same first book. Moreover, when I said that created things and certain works were to be considered, I briefly set forth examples of such things as being less suitable, when I said: "Neither is the plant the same as the farmer, nor the skiff the same as the shipbuilder" (from Athanasius, ibid., n. 18). Then I dwelt more on things that were fitting and more suited to the nature of the matter, and I explained at greater length what was truer, with various arguments I devised, which I also set forth to you in another letter; among these I also refuted the charge of falsehood, and that accusation which they bring against me, namely, that I do not assert that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have never found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless the other arguments which I then added, and which they have kept silent about, are in no way discrepant from this understanding.

For I brought forth as an example human offspring, which is certainly of the same kind as the parent, and I said that parents are truly distinguished from children only in that they themselves are not children; or else it would necessarily happen that there would be neither parents nor children. But the letter, as I said before, I do not have with me because of the present state of affairs; otherwise I would have sent you the very words I then wrote, indeed a copy of the entire letter, and I will send it whenever I obtain a copy of it. Moreover, I recall that I added very many similitudes among things related to each other. For I said that a plant, whether growing from seed or from a root, is different from that from which it sprouted, even though it is entirely of the same nature; similarly, a river flowing from a spring takes on a different form and name, for the spring is not called a river, nor the river a spring, but these are two things; and the spring is, as it were, the father, while the river is the water from the spring. But these and similar things, which were written, they pretend not to see, as if they were blind; but with two ill-composed little words, as if with stones, they try to attack me from a distance, not noticing that for things unknown and which need interpretation to be understood, examples that are not only foreign but even contrary often shed light.

From the same first book. It was said above that God is the fountain of all goods, but the Son is called a river flowing from him; for the word is the emanation of the mind, and, to speak in human fashion, is sent forth from the heart through the mouth. But the mind, which leaps forth through the tongue, is other than the word which exists in the heart. For this, after it has sent that forth, remains, and is as it was before; but that, once sent forth, flies away and is carried about everywhere; and thus each is in the other, although one is different from the other, and they are one, although they are two: for thus the Father and the Son are said to be one and to be in each other. From the second book. The individual names uttered by me can neither be separated from each other nor divided (from Athanas., ibid., n. 17). I said "Father," and before I made mention of the Son, I already signified him in the Father. I added "Son," and the Father, even if I had not named him first, was already entirely comprehended in the Son. I added "Holy Spirit": but I subjoined from where and through whom he proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither can the Father, insofar as he is father, be alienated from the Son: for that name is an evident cause of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father; for this word "father" indicates a communication. And there is in their hands the Spirit, who can be torn away neither from the sender nor from the bearer. How then can I, who use such names, think that they are separated from each other and entirely divided?

After a brief pause, he adds: Thus we expand the indivisible unity into the Trinity, and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into unity. From the same second book. But if any slanderer, because I have called God the maker and creator of all things, thinks that I have also called Christ a creator, let him note that I first called the Father himself by that name; in which term the Son is simultaneously expressed (from Athanasius, ibid., n. 20). For after I called the Father a maker, I added: Neither is he the father of those things of which he is the maker, if he is properly understood to be father who has begotten (for we will examine the breadth of this word, father, in what follows): nor is the maker a father, if only the craftsman is called a maker. For among the Greeks who are wise, the makers of their books are called factors. The Apostle also says: Maker of the law (Rom. 2:13; James 4:12). Also of intrinsic things, such as virtue and vice, men are called makers, just as God said: I waited for him to do justice, but he did iniquity (Isa. 5:7).

(These passages are adduced by St. Athanasius, loc. cit., n. xx, p. 257.) Athanasius adds, n. 21, that Dionysius, when reproached for having said that God is the maker of Christ, gave various responses by which he cleared himself, saying: This expression ought not to be reproached in this way; for he says that he used the term "maker" on account of the flesh which the Word had assumed, which flesh was certainly made. But if anyone should suspect that this was said of the Word, that too was to be heard without contentiousness. For just as I do not perceive the Word to be a thing made, so I do not call God the maker, but rather his father. But even if, when discoursing about the Son, I should incidentally call God the maker, this manner of speaking is not without defense. For the wise among the Greeks call themselves makers of their books, even though they are also the fathers of their books. Moreover, divine Scripture calls us makers of the thoughts that proceed from the heart, when it calls us makers of law, of judgment, and of justice.

From the same second book. In the beginning was the Word: but it was not the Word that produced the Word (from Athanasius, ibid., n. 25): for the Word was with God (John 1). The Lord is wisdom: therefore it was not wisdom that produced wisdom; for, says He, I am that in which He delighted (Proverbs 8:30). Christ is truth: but the blessed one, says the God of truth. From the third book. Life was born from life, just as a river flows from a spring, and a bright light is kindled from an inextinguishable light (from Athanasius, ibid., n. 18). (These are adduced by St. Athanasius, Epistle on the Opinion of Dionysius, n. XVIII, p. 256.) From the fourth book. Just as our mind brings forth a word from itself (Athanasius, ibid., n. 23), as the Prophet says: My heart has brought forth a good word (Psalm 44:2), and each is distinct from the other, each holding its own place distinct from the other, while the one indeed abides and moves in the heart, the other in the tongue and mouth: yet they are not separated from each other, nor are they deprived of each other; neither is the mind without the word, nor the word without the mind: but the mind makes the word and appears in it, and the word exhibits the mind in which it was made. And the mind is, as it were, the immanent word, while the word is the mind springing forth. The mind passes into the word: the word, however, transmits the mind to the surrounding hearers: and thus the mind, through the word, settles into the souls of the hearers, entering together with the word. And the mind is, as it were, the father of the word existing within itself.

The Word, however, as the son of the mind, cannot have been made before it nor outside it, but exists with it, from which it took its origin and birth. In the same way, the greatest Father and universal Mind has before all things the Son as Word and speech, his own interpreter and messenger. (These are cited by St. Athanasius, ibid., n. 23, p. 259.) Around the middle of the work. If, because there are three hypostases, they say they are divided, then they are three, even if they do not wish it; or they utterly remove the divine Trinity. (From Basil, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29.) And again: (St. Basil the Great says): These are found in St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, penultimate chapter, p. 61. For this reason, after the unity, there is also the most divine Trinity. Conclusion of the entire work. In accordance with all these things, we also, having received the form and rule from the elders who lived before us, with a voice concordant with theirs, will conclude both the thanksgiving and now also the letter we are writing to you: but to God the Father and the Son our Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit, glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

(He [St. Basil the Great] adduced these in his book On the Holy Spirit, penultimate chapter, p. 60, Benedictine edition.) (St. Athanasius reported these things concerning the work itself.) It is then complained (by Dionysius) that the accusers do not report his statements in their entirety, but truncated, and that they speak not with good conscience but with evil, according to their own will; he compares them to the calumniators of the blessed apostle's epistles. Certainly, meeting each of the accusers' words, he applies a solution to all their arguments; and since he had most plainly refuted Sabellius in those earlier writings, in these later ones he declares his own faith to be entirely pious. LETTER IV. From Eusebius, Book VII of the *History*, a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Dionysius of Rome concerning Lucianus is mentioned: nor do we know anything else about this letter from elsewhere. Moreover, that Lucianus, concerning whom, or for whose sake, it was written, is believed to be the successor of Cyprian, whom Optatus in Book I mentions in these words: "There was an altar in its place, upon which peaceful bishops of a former time offered, Cyprian, Lucianus, and others." And therefore a learned man thinks it was not undeservedly written, so that peace might be kept inviolate among the successors of Stephen and Cyprian.

Just as before God simultaneously raised up Victor to defend the apostolic tradition concerning the Paschal day, and Irenaeus to establish peace between dissenting churches, so too, not without divine will, did Stephen preside over the Roman Church and Dionysius over the Alexandrian Church at the same time; but the former was to be the defender of the divine tradition concerning baptism, the latter the mediator of ecclesiastical peace. What, however, is conjectured concerning this letter—that it should be referred to the beginning of the pontificate of Dionysius of Rome—is demanded. A letter of Dionysius, bishop of Rome, to the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia is missing, which Basil, bishop of that same city of Caesarea, testifies was preserved and celebrated by the memory of the elders themselves (Basil, ep. 220, and Damasus, ep., n. 3). With this letter, by which he consoled the afflicted Caesareans, Dionysius sent legates who would free their brothers redeemed from captivity. It is, however, a conjecture that this captivity of the Caesareans occurred after the year 260, when Valerian was destroyed and captured by the Persians. For from that time, the neighboring Roman provinces began to lie open to barbarian incursions. And specifically, Philostorgius, in book II, chapter, relates that the Scythians, that is, the Goths, around the year 264, raided the cities of Cappadocia and from there led away many captives with them.

VI. In Eusebius, Book VII, chapter 50, there is read a letter of the Council of Antioch inscribed to Dionysius (the Roman), Maximus (who had succeeded Dionysius of Alexandria), and to all fellow bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the entire Catholic Church everywhere in the world, by which Paul of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate, and Domnus was announced as substituted in his place. It is indeed almost entirely described by Eusebius; but since, apart from the inscription, it contains nothing special that pertains either to Dionysius or to his see, we consider it sufficient to indicate it. Moreover, Eusebius, in Book II, chapter 29, says that the Council of Antioch, from which it was written, was celebrated in the times of the Emperor Aurelian: who indeed succeeded Claudius II around the month of April in the year 270. Whence it is believed to have been composed not long before the death of our Dionysius, or even after his death, but when the news of his death had not yet reached Antioch.

VII. To Pope Dionysius, Isidorus Mercator attributed two letters: one to Urbanus the prefect, the other to Severus the bishop, to be published in their proper place among the rest of his works.