|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by Cardinal Newman.
St Athanasius the Great Resources Online and in Print
|
29 Pages
Page 3
At the same time he wrote personally to Dionysius, informing him that he was accused of maintaining the opinions in question. In answer to this letter, Dionysius of Alexandria drew up a treatise in four books, entitled 'Refutation and Defence,' and addressed to his namesake of Rome, in which he explained his language, and stated his belief in a manner which put an end to the controversy. He had been charged with maintaining that the Son was made, that He was not eternal (ouk aei en ho theos pater, ouk aei en ho huios,...ouk en prin gennethe, all' en pote hote ouk en k.t.l. S:14), that he denied the co-essentiality (homoousion) of the Son, and separated Him from the Father (S:16, 18, cf. S: 4, xenon kat' ousian k.t.l). In his Refutation and Defence, Dionysius admits the use of these expressions, withdraws the first (S:15, line 1) and admits the propriety of the homoousion, although he himself prefers Scriptural language (S: 18. The section shews the unfixed use of the word. Dionysius had formerly used ousia in the sense of prote ousia, nearly as equivalent to hupostasis: but now he clearly takes it as deutera ousia, indicative not of Person but of Nature). That the Son was made, he explains as an inadequate formula, the word being applicable (in one of its many senses) to the relation of son to father (S:20. The defence of Athanasius, that Dionysius referred to the Human Nature of Christ, is scarcely tenable. It is not supported by what Dionysius himself says, rather the contrary: and if his language did not refer to the Trinity, where would be its relevancy against Sabellianism?). The words en hote ouk en, and ouk en prin gennethe, he does not explain, but professes his belief in the eternal union of the Word with the Father (S:S:24, 25). Lastly, he repudiates the charge of dividing the Holy Trinity, or of mentioning Father and Son as though separate Beings: When I mention the Father, I have already mentioned the Son, before I pronounce His Name (S:17, the closing words of the section are a complete formula of agreement with all that his Roman namesake could possibly require of him).
That Dionysius in his 'Refutation and Defence' merely restated, and did not (kat' oikonomian) alter, his theological position is open to no doubt. Athanasius, not the Arians, had the right to claim him as his own. He is clearly speaking optima fide when he deprecates the pressing of statements in which he had given expression to one side only, and that the less essential side, of his convictions.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/athanasius/opinion-dionysius.asp?pg=3
