St. Dionysius of Alexandria: Letters and Treatises

“Refutation and Defence”

(Eus., Præp. Evang. vii. 19)

(1) They are not pious, who hand over matter to God as a thing without beginning for His orderly disposition,243 maintaining that, being subject to treatment and change, it yields to the modifications imposed by God. For they should explain how both the like and the unlike belong both to God and to matter. For some one must be imagined superior to either,244 and that may not be entertained about God. For whence came it that there is in them both the being without beginning, which is what is said to be “like” in both and which is also conceived of as different from both?245 For if God is of Himself without beginning and the being without beginning is, as some would say, His very essence, matter will not be without beginning, too: for matter and God are not identical. But, if each is what it is independently, and to both belongs in addition the property of being without beginning, it is clear that the being without beginning is different from either and older and higher than both. And thus the difference between their opposing states is entirely subversive of their co-existence, or rather of the one, viz. matter existing of itself. Otherwise let them state the reason why, both being without beginning, God is not subject to treatment, unchangeable, immovable, productive, and matter is the opposite, subject to treatment, changeable, mobile, varying.

Again, how is it that God and matter came in contact and combined? Was it that God adapted Himself to match the nature of matter and exercised His craft upon it? Nay, that is absurd that God, like men, should work in gold and stone and busy Himself in the other handicrafts which the various materials can give shape and form to.246

But if God endowed matter with the qualities which He in His own wisdom determined, impressing on it as with a seal the multiform and diverse shape and fashion of His own workmanship, this account of it is both proper and true, and yet further proves that God, who is the fundamental principle on which the universe exists, is without beginning. For to its being (according to them) without beginning God add its bearing certain qualities. So, then, there is still much to be said in answer to these views, but we do not propose to say it now. Nevertheless they are expressed with more propriety than those who are absolutely atheistical polytheists.247

(2) (Athan., de sent. Dion., 18). However, when I spoke of certain things that had an origin (γενητά) and certain things that were made (ποιητά), I did indeed casually mention examples of such things, recognizing that they were not altogether useful for my purpose: for instance, I said that neither was the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the boat as the shipwright. But afterwards I dwelt at length on those which were more to the point and cognate to the subject, and went more into detail about these truer examples, seeking out various additional evidences which I set out for you248 also in another letter: and in them I refuted as false the accusation also which they bring against me, as not stating that Christ is of one substance (ὁμοούσιος)249 with the Father. For even if I say250 that this word is not found nor read anywhere in Holy Writ, yet these later attempts of mine to explain which they have ignored are not inconsistent with this conception. For I compared human generation, which is clearly a transmission of the parents’ own nature (ὁμογενής), saying that the parents were different from their children in this single point, that they were not themselves the children: or else it must needs be that neither parents nor children should exist. The letter itself I cannot, as I have said before, owing to circumstances,251 lay my hand on: otherwise I would have sent you my exact words, or rather a copy of the whole letter: and I will do so, if I have the opportunity. But I know from memory that I added several illustrations from things kindred to one another: for instance, I said that a plant coming up from a seed or a root was different from that whence it sprang and yet was absolutely of one nature (ὁμοφυές) with it: and a river flowing from a source partakes of a different shape and name; for neither is the source called river nor the river source, and both these things exist,252 and the source is, in a sense, the father and the river is the water from the source. But these and similar remarks they pretend never to have seen written, but act as if they were blind. They only try to pelt me from afar253 with those poor ill-fitting phrases of mine254 as with stones, failing to recognize that where a subject is obscure and requires to be brought within our understanding, not only do diverse but even quite contradictory illustrations convey the meaning sought for.

(3) (Ibid., 17.) It has been already said that God is the Fountain of all good things: and the Son is described255 as the stream flowing forth from Him. For the Word is “the effluence” of mind, and, to use human phraseology, is conveyed from the heart through the mouth, i. e. the mind that finds expression by means of the tongue, being differentiated from the word in the heart. For the one having sent it forth remains and is still what it was; but the other being sent forth issues and is carried in all directions: and thus each is in each, being different one from the other: and they are one, being two. And it was in this way that the Father and the Son also were said to be one and in one another.256

Each of the titles employed by me is indivisible and inseparable from its neighbour. I spoke of the Father, and before introducing the Son I implied Him, too, in the Father. I introduced the Son: even if I had not already mentioned the Father He would, of course, have been presupposed in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit: but at the same time I intimated both from Whom and through Whom257 He came. But they are not aware that the Father is not separated from the Son qua Father – for the title (Father) is suggestive of such connexion (as Son with Father) – nor is the Son cut off from the Father; for the appellation “Father” denotes their common bond. And the Spirit is the object of their dealings,258 being incapable of desertion by either Him that sends, or Him that conveys. How then can I, who use these titles, hold that They are wholly divided and separated?259

(4) (Ibid., 23). For, as our mind overflows with speech260 of itself, as says the prophet: “My heart overfloweth with good speech,”261 and each is diverse from the other, each occupying its proper place distinct from the other, the one dwelling and moving in the heart and the other on the tongue and in the mouth, and yet they are not entirely unconnected nor deprived of one another; the mind is not speechless, nor the speech mindless, but the mind produces the speech, revealing itself thereby; and the speech shows the mind, having been gendered therein; the mind is, as it were, the inlying speech and the speech is the issuing mind; the mind is transferred into the speech and the speech displays262 the mind to the hearers; and thus the mind through the speech gains a lodgment in the souls of those that hear, entering together with the speech, and the mind is, as it were, the father of the speech, having an independent existence withal; and the speech is, as it were, the son of the mind, being an impossibility prior to the mind, yet brought into association with it from any outside source, but springing from the mind; even so the Father, who is the Almighty and Universal Mind, has the Son, the Word as the Interpreter and Messenger of Himself.

Additional Note to p. 12

Jerome (in his letter ad Evangelum) is responsible for the assertion that Dionysius was the last who, in accordance with the original custom of the Church of Alexandria, was nominated as Bishop by his fellow-presbyters there. Subsequently the Bishop was chosen (at least in theory) by the whole body of the faithful in the diocese, as in other parts of Christendom. Jerome’s words do not seem to include consecration also by a fresh laying of hands by the presbytery, though Bishop Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 231) inferred from certain other evidence of a not very decisive kind that this was the case and that it was rendered necessary at first by the Bishop of Alexandria having had no other Bishops with him in Egypt until 190. Others hold that no fresh laying on of hands at all had been considered necessary, which is hardly probable. Mr. C. H. Turner (Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i.) has suggested that Jerome was misled by Arians who had their own interests to serve in making the assertion, while he himself was too ready to credit it in his zeal to uphold the presbyterate against the arrogant claims of the Roman deacons at that time. The present writer ventures to think that Jerome’s statement, if correct, refers only to nomination and that an episcopal consecrator had been found elsewhere (e. g. in Africa or Palestine or Syria) for the laying on of hands as usual.

1

In one of Eusebius’s works (the Præparatio Evangelica) he is quoted side by side with great authors like Plato and Aristotle.

2

Most of those who read this will be aware that παῖς (Lat. puer) can be used in various senses, like our “boy” and French garçon.

3

Not the Prefect of Egypt of that name mentioned by Dionysius on p. 46, though he did afterwards try to usurp the throne (see p. 16).

4

For Dionysius’s share in this dispute see his letter on p. 50.

5

Dionysius’s phrase about him on p. 66 is “tutor and chief ruler of Egyptian magicians”; see note 3 in loco.

6

This Æmilianus was one of several who afterwards attempted to seize the throne; see above, p. 14. Macrianus was another of them in Egypt (p. 68, n.).

7

The office indicated seems to be the same as that of Rationalis mentioned above on p. 16.

8

I was much assisted in drawing up this summary of περὶ Φύσεως and also in writing the notes upon the extracts from the text by Professor H. Jackson, of Cambridge fame.

9

The particular passage, however, adduced by Procopius above is Gen. iii. 21.

10

On this point C. H. Turner’s article in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. V, pp. 496 f. (on Patristic Commentaries), may be consulted.

11

The passage on Luke xxii, quoted by Dr. Sanday (Inspiration, p. 36), is of very doubtful authenticity.

12

“Martyr” in this case need not necessarily be taken strictly as meaning “one put to death for the Faith,” though no doubt the mediæval tradition was in favour of his martyrdom in that sense.

13

It looks as if Dionysius was afraid to mention his name. Perhaps it was Sabinus the Prefect. The word “poet” in Greek means properly “maker,” and there is evidently a double entendre in its use here.

14

i. e. against Christ (1 Cor. xii. 3).

15

The reference is to Heb. x. 34. It will be noticed that Dionysius attributes this Epistle to S. Paul, either inadvertently or in accordance with the Alexandrine tradition, which Origen also accepts (Eus., H. E., vi. 25).

16

Viz. the revolt of Decius in Oct. 249.

17

i. e. Philip the Arabian, who was popularly supposed to be half a Christian.

18

The reference is obviously to Matt. xxiv. 24 (Mark xiii. 22) though Dionysius has substituted “cause to stumble” (σκανδαλίσαι) for “cause to go astray” (πλανῆσαι or ἀποπλανᾶν).

19

The reference is very loosely to Matt. xix. 23 and 25.

20

Viz. those who held no prominent position; the ordinary folk.

21

Cp. Gal. ii. 9.

22

Cp. Acts xxviii. 23 and Rev. i. 9.

23

There is evidently an allusion here to Matt. v. 11 and Luke vi. 22.

24

Viz. the ungulæ, with which the flesh was torn from the bones.

25

Only three are mentioned in the text.

26

i. e. some time between 251, when persecution ended with the death of Decius, and 257, when Valerian revived it.

27

The first was a martial offence, the second a civil.

28

i. e. by being allowed to follow Christ’s example.

29

This was the catasta, or platform, which corresponded to our prisoner’s dock.

30

Dionysius’s language recalls 2 Cor. ii. 14; Col. ii. 15 is different.

31

Cf. Heb. xi. 38.

32

i. e. they showed themselves worthy of being among the elect.

33

A range of hills to the east of the Nile seems to have been so called.

34

On the marriage of the clergy at this time, see Bingham, Antiq., IV, v. § 5.

35

This is probably the earliest extant mention of the Saracens – at least by that name.

36

The opinion that the martyrs passed at once to heaven and shared His throne was general among the early Fathers (see Matt. xix. 28 and 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3).

37

Cp. Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 9.

38

These expressions are not to be pressed as if they assumed episcopal authority.

39

Cp. Gal. i. 20.

40

i. e. in October 249.

41

The Prefect of Egypt.

42

This was a kind of soldier employed on secret service by the emperors and their provincial governors.

43

Probably his sons, though they might be his pupils or his servants.

44

One of “the boys.”

45

Whether Timotheus was making off to join Dionysius or was fleeing in another direction is not clear.

46

Cp. Mark xiv. 52.

47

Dionysius’s language here recalls 2 Cor. xi. 1, 17, 21 and xii. 6, 11.

48

Viz. Tobit xii. 7, where the best attested reading is “to reveal gloriously,” instead of “(it is) glorious to reveal.”

49

The Prefect of Egypt at that time.

50

Though Dionysius was Bishop, it is noticeable that he still associates himself with the presbyterate here and elsewhere; cp. 1 Pet. v. 1, etc.

51

Acts v. 29.

52

Marcellus seems to be the “brother from Rome” mentioned above, and Eusebius is not now mentioned.

53

The word “also” either refers to the imperial edict or suggests that some written communication had been sent.

54

Viz. Valerian and his son Gallienus.

55

Cp. 1 Tim. ii. 2; this laudable custom is often referred to in early Christian writings.

56

This restriction was constantly enforced by persecuting emperors, because the graves of martyrs were a favourite resort for prayer and worship. The word cemetery (=sleeping-place) was introduced by Christians for graveyards.

57

This is an indignant protest against Germanus’s charges.

58

1 Cor. xv. 3.

59

Col. iv. 3.

60

Cp. Acts xii. 25.

61

The brethren who lived on the outskirts of a city like Alexandria were not bound to attend the mother church, but had as it were chapels of ease in their own vicinities.

62

Or perhaps “carried on” (to act as thou didst).

63

Strictly speaking, Novatian’s withdrawal was not very likely to involve actual martyrdom.

64

The word is κατόρθωμα (success); perhaps “recovery” would bring out the antithesis to “fall” (σφάλμα) better.

65

Gen. xix. 17 (LXX).

66

Another reading gives “blessed” (μακάριος), which, though less well supported by the MSS., makes the phrase μακαρίως ἀνεπαύσατο more pointed.

67

This expression probably means to include the Churches of Mesopotamia and Osroene, besides those which he proceeds to mention below.

68

Eusebius is mistaken in identifying this peace with the cessation of persecution: the reference is to the subsiding of the Novatianist schism in 254 which restored peace to Christendom. The surprise and joy were due to the violence of the language and other measures which the chief combatants (Stephen and Cyprian) had employed.

69

Hadrian’s colony in Mount Sion was so named (A.D. 132). Later on the older and more glorious name of Jerusalem was restored to the see.

70

Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia († A.D. 260), and one of Origen’s distinguished pupils. On the baptismal controversy he sided with Cyprian of Carthage.

71

The adroit reference to the wonted liberality of the Roman Church is to be noted: other instances are given by Salmon, Infallibility, p. 375.

72

Here again Dionysius shows his adroitness, if Benson (Cyprian, p. 357) is right in thinking that the list of churches he gives suggests a repetition of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii. 9 f.).

73

Cp. the letter to Dionysius, p. 58.

74

Lev. xxiv. 13-16.

75

The word here used represents μυστήριον, denoting the Christian revelation as μυστήριον often does.

76

Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22 and Gal. i. 8, 9.

77

The former are converts from heathenism, or perhaps from heresy; the latter Christians who have lapsed.

78

The word here is the Greek χειροτονία in Syriac letters, and so might also be rendered “ordination.”

79

The MSS. from which this extract comes state that it is from a letter to Dionysius and Stephanus of Rome. No such letter is otherwise known, and it is not likely that Stephen’s name would come second, as he was then bishop and Dionysius only a presbyter, though later on he became bishop. Possibly it is from the letter which our Dionysius tells us he wrote to his Roman namesake and Philemon when they were of the same opinion as Stephen: see p. 55. As far as the contents of the extract go, it is not at all incredible that Dionysius was willing to admit the validity of such baptisms as are specified: it was only heresies of a very fundamental kind which he considered to invalidate baptism.

80

The successor to Stephanus in 257 as Bishop of Rome: he was martyred after one year’s reign.

81

This was, according to Benson (Cyprian, p. 354), a threat which he did not actually carry into effect, and was only meant to restrain them from adopting Cyprian’s attitude on the matter.

82

i. e. those of Iconium and Synnada (circ. 230): Dionysius may also be referring to the three much more recent councils which Cyprian had held at Carthage between 254 and 256 (i. e. since his letter to Stephen above). By this time he had by patient inquiry found out much more than he had known at first of what was necessary to be known before coming to a decision.

83

Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11 and v. 7, 8.

84

See note on p. 54. Dionysius became afterwards Bishop of Rome in 259: a fragment of a letter from our Dionysius to him is printed on p. 58. His famous letter to our Dionysius on the Sabellian controversy is not included in this volume. Part of a letter to Philemon is given on p. 56. He was a Roman Presbyter.

85

On the north-west coast of Cyrenaica, one of the five chief cities which gave its name to the Libyan Pentapolis. Sabellius denied the three Persons in the Trinity, and held that the Person of the Father who is One with the Son was incarnate in Christ: see further p. 19.

86

There seems no doubt that this is the right reading here, though most of the MSS. read “God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ”; but clearly Dionysius is only speaking of God the Father in this clause and of Jesus Christ in the next. See 2 Cor. i. 2, Eph. i. 3, etc.

87

It was Dionysius’s treatment of this subject which afterwards gave Arius the heresiarch of Alexandria an opening for claiming his teaching in support of his own tenets, though there is no Arian suggestion, of course, in this phrase: see p. 20.

88

Col. i. 15.

89

Eus., H. E. vii. 26, mentions letters to Ammonius, Bishop of Bernice, Telesphorus Euphranor and Euporus in this connexion. Athanasius appears only to have known one joint letter to Ammonius and Euphranor.

90

Dionysius seems to distinguish here two kinds of writings: (1) those that were based on systematic research and criticism, and (2) those that handed on the more traditional and less critical views and statements of the past.

91

Divine interposition is more vaguely suggested above on p. 44. S. Augustine’s statement should also be compared, that at a critical moment of his conversion he heard a voice saying, “Take and read” (Conf. vii. 12, § 29); S. Polycarp likewise heard a voice from heaven saying, “Be strong and play the man,” as he was led into the arena.

92

See Introduction, p. 11.

93

This is one of the more common apocryphal sayings usually attributed to our Lord: hence the epithet “apostolic” is somewhat strange.

94

The word for “Father” here is πὰπας (pope), a colloquial form of πατήρ applied to any bishop (or even to one of the inferior clergy sometimes) in the first ages. For Heraclas see p. 11. It is to be noticed, however, that this canon of his dealt not with heretical baptism (such as Dionysius is dealing with), but with actual or reputed perverts, and stated the terms on which they were to be restored to the Church of their baptism.

95

i. e. the Church in Africa Proconsularis, of which Carthage was the metropolis and Cyprian the metropolitan.

96

Iconium was the chief city of Lycaonia (see Acts xiii. and xiv.), and Synnada was an important town in Phrygia Salutaris. These synods had been held some twenty-five years before (in A.D. 230).

97

Deut. xix. 14.

98

See above, p. 53.

99

A confession of faith has always been required before baptism: this Novatian virtually ignored by his action.

100

Here as elsewhere Dionysius shows his breadth of view about God in recognizing that the Holy Spirit might in some measure remain even with the lapsed.

101

It is strange that so old a believer should never have noticed the difference before, but baptism was almost entirely confined at that time to Easter and Whitsuntide, and he may have always been absent.

102

Cp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16. The Amen is either that after the Consecration of the Elements or at the Reception of them.

103

“Standing” was, and is still, the posture in the East: Scudamore, Not. Euch., p. 637.

104

A somewhat rare word for “Altar” without some descriptive epithet like “holy” or “mystic.”