S. Dionysius Alexandrinus, Epistolae II ad Dionysium Romanum seu operis quod Elenchus et Apologia inscribebatur fragmenta

NOTE: the call (1) stands in the full-width caption "Ex eodem libro primo (1)." before § 6 (seen in the page-foot image; the call itself is not set in the source). Note added by Q2 from the page foot (p64 footL/footR).

(1) ‹anchor: Ex eodem libro primo› · call in col 119 (in the full-width caption)

Quorsum Dionysius sequentia in medium attulerit, Athanasius ita declarat: Accusatores suos, qui eum mentiebantur dixisse, Filium unum eorum esse quae facta sunt, et nequaquam esse Patri consubstantialem, iterum in libro primo coarguit his verbis. Unde liquet ea in superiore Dionysii romani epistola confutata esse, quae Alexandrino objecta fuerant. Ii enim, qui Dominum factum esse, sicut unum eorum quae facta sunt, existimant, in illa, n. 2, refelluntur. Illud quoque notandum, eam fidem, qua Patrem et Filium unius substantiae, seu consubstantiales credimus, fidelium animis ita semper fuisse insitam, ut cum hoc negare putaretur Alexandrinus antistes, statim a catholicis viris ad romanum pontificem fuerit delatus, nec ille distulerit sese ab hujusmodi opinione alienissimum demonstrare. Nec illud minori observatione dignum, quod non tantum rem verbo ὁμοούσιον significatam, sed et ipsummet verbum aliquo modo rejici fideles tot ante nicaenum concilium annis indigne tulerint. Coust.

For what purpose Dionysius brought forward what follows, Athanasius declares thus: His accusers, who falsely claimed that he had said that the Son is one of the things that are made, and in no way consubstantial with the Father, he refutes again in the first book in these words. From this it is plain that the charges laid against the Alexandrian were refuted in the earlier letter of Dionysius of Rome. For those who think that the Lord was made, like one of the things that are made, are refuted in it, n. 2. This too is to be noted: the faith by which we believe the Father and the Son to be of one substance, or consubstantial, was always so implanted in the minds of the faithful that, when the bishop of Alexandria was thought to deny it, he was at once reported by catholic men to the Roman pontiff, and he did not delay to show himself utterly removed from any opinion of this kind. Nor is it less worthy of observation that, so many years before the Nicene council, the faithful took it ill that not only the thing signified by the word ὁμοούσιον (homoousion), but the very word itself, should in any way be rejected. Coustant.

(printed under page 64)

(1) ‹anchor: eodem libro primo› · call in col 120

Quorsum Dionysius sequentia in medium attulerit, Athanasius ita declarat: Accusatores suos, qui eum mentiebantur dixisse, Filium unum eorum esse quae facta sunt, et nequaquam esse Patri consubstantialem, iterum in libro primo coarguit his verbis. Unde liquet ea in superiore Dionysii romani epistola confutata esse, quae Alexandrino objecta fuerant. Ii enim, qui Dominum factum esse, sicut unum eorum quae facta sunt, existimant, in illa, n. 2, refelluntur. Illud quoque notandum, eam fidem, qua Patrem et Filium unius substantiae, seu consubstantiales credimus, fidelium animis ita semper fuisse insitam, ut cum hoc negare putaretur Alexandrinus antistes, statim a catholicis viris ad romanum pontificem fuerit delatus, nec ille distulerit sese ab hujusmodi opinione alienissimum demonstrare. Nec illud minori observatione dignum, quod non tantum rem verbo ὁμοούσιον significatam, sed et ipsummet verbum aliquo modo rejici fideles tot ante nicaenum concilium annis indigne tulerint. Coust.

Why Dionysius brought forward what follows, Athanasius declares thus: His accusers, who falsely claimed he had said that the Son is one of the things that were made, and in no way consubstantial with the Father, he refutes again in his first book in these words. From this it is clear that the charges laid against the Alexandrian were refuted in the preceding letter of Dionysius of Rome. For those who think that the Lord was made, as one of the things that were made, are refuted in it, at n. 2. This too is to be noted: the faith by which we believe the Father and the Son to be of one substance, or consubstantial, was always so implanted in the minds of the faithful that, when the bishop of Alexandria was thought to deny it, he was at once reported by catholic men to the Roman pontiff, and he did not delay to show himself utterly removed from any such opinion. Nor is it less worthy of observation that the faithful, so many years before the Nicene council, took it ill that not only the thing signified by the word ὁμοούσιον (homoousion), but the very word itself, should in any way be rejected. Coustant.

(printed under page 64)

- After section 5, printed run-on in the Greek column: "Haec excitata sunt serie continua a S. Athanasio in Epistola de Sententia Dionysii, num. 15, p. 253, ed. Benedictin." Editors' matter (source reference), not the work's; set in layer 1 as its own paragraph (QA Q3).

NOTE: the commentarii on this page are keyed by lemma (italic catchwords), not by call letters; each lemma stands in place of a call. Several first words in the left column are blotted in the scan and were read from context (Nihil, sentire se, Dionysii, adversarii, unius, Scripturis nusquam). [lemma] Tibi in alia epistola exposui · lemma in col 121 Tibi in alia epistola exposui. Athanasius tum epist. de Decretis nic. synodi, n. 25, tum lib. de Synod., n. 44, superiora hujus testimonii verba summatim perstringere contentus, ab his illud referre incipit: καὶ δι' ἄλλης ἐπιστολῆς ἔγραψα, ἐν οἷς ἤλεγξα, etc., ubi vocabula σοι non extat. Verum cum a nullo vetere codice scripto aut edito hic absit, ac tutius sit de integritate alicujus sententiae ex iis libris dijudicare in quibus plenior et integrior, quam ex iis in quibus minus integra aut decurtata profertur; nihil est cur aliam epistolam ad Dionysium Romanum ante scriptam hic memorari dubitemus; praesertim cum Basilius hanc secundam vocet. Coustant.

I explained to you in another letter. Athanasius, both in the letter On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, n. 25, and in the book On the Synods, n. 44, content to touch summarily on the earlier words of this testimony, begins his quotation from these: "and through another letter I wrote, in which I refuted," etc., where the word σοι ("to you") is not found. But since it is absent from no old codex, manuscript or printed, here, and since it is safer to judge the integrity of any sentence from those books in which it is given fuller and more complete than from those in which it is given less complete or cut short, there is no reason for us to doubt that another letter written earlier to Dionysius of Rome is mentioned here, especially since Basil calls this one the second. Coustant.

[lemma] Nihil discrepant · lemma in col 121 Nihil discrepant. Hoc est, idem de Christo sentire se demonstrant, quod illi consubstantialem eum praedicando intelligunt. Coustant

They differ in nothing. That is, they show that they hold the same about Christ as those others mean by proclaiming Him consubstantial. Coustant.

[lemma] Epistolam autem · lemma in col 121 Epistolam autem. Hic aliqua memorari videtur Dionysii epistola, ex qua ipsius accusandi occasio accepta est, et unde, ut mox querebatur, adversarii ipsius ita in medium protulerant, quod unius substantiae seu homousii vocabulum in Scripturis nusquam legisse se dixerat, ut tacerent argumenta vel exempla, quibus id, quod praedicto vocabulo significatur, asseverabat. Quapropter assentiendum est, ut videtur, Tillemontio, qui epistolam ad Ammonium et Euphranorem hic notari censet. Hinc etiam colligere est Dionysium turbulento tempore, quo propria etiam scripta penes se non haberet, hoc opus concinnasse. Quamvis enim Valeriani persecutio, hoc imperatore anno 260 deleto atque capto, cessarit, Alexandrinam tamen urbem ad annum 262, pacatam non fuisse Dionysii ipsius festivae seu paschales epistolae testes sunt. Coustant.

But the letter. Some letter of Dionysius seems to be mentioned here, from which the occasion for accusing him was taken, and from which, as he presently complained, his adversaries had brought forward the fact that he had said he had nowhere read in the Scriptures the word "of one substance" or homoousios, in such a way as to pass over the arguments or examples by which he affirmed what that word signifies. It seems, therefore, that we should agree with Tillemont, who thinks the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor is meant here. From this too one may gather that Dionysius composed this work in a turbulent time, when he did not even have his own writings by him. For although the persecution of Valerian ceased when that emperor was overthrown and captured in the year 260, the festal or paschal letters of Dionysius himself witness that the city of Alexandria was not at peace until the year 262. Coustant.

[lemma] Voculis incompositis · lemma in col 121 Voculis incompositis. Quibus scilicet Dionysius Patris et Filii distinctionem ostensurus, plantae et agricolae necnon scaphae et fabri non satis accuratis similitudinibus usus fuerat. Coustant.

With unpolished little words. That is, the words in which Dionysius, meaning to show the distinction of the Father and the Son, had used the not sufficiently exact likenesses of the plant and the farmer, and of the boat and the shipwright. Coustant.

[lemma] Mens vero · lemma in col 121 Mens vero. Hoc est, cogitatio, quae vocis beneficio foras emittitur. Ea ipsa similitudo, qua nunc Dionysius unitatem simul et distinctionem Patris ac Filii illustrat, postea Augustino ad explicandum incarnati Verbi mysterium familiaris fuit. Sicut ergo, inquit serm. 119, nov. edit., n. 7, verbum meum prolatum est sensui tuo, nec recessit a corde meo; sic illud Verbum prolatum est sensui nostro, nec (continues)

But the mind. That is, the thought, which is sent outward by means of the voice. This very likeness, by which Dionysius here illustrates at once the unity and the distinction of the Father and the Son, was later a familiar one to Augustine for explaining the mystery of the incarnate Word. Just as, he says in sermon 119 of the new edition, n. 7, my word has been brought forth to your understanding and has not left my heart, so that Word has been brought forth to our understanding, and has not (continues)

(printed under page 65)

- At the end of the first Greek paragraph, printed run-on: "(Haec adducuntur a S. Athanasio in Ep. de Sententia Dionysii, num. XVIII, p. 255.)" ("xviii" in small capitals). Editors' matter (source reference), not the work's; set in layer 1 as its own paragraph (QA Q3).

NOTE: the commentarii on this page are keyed by lemma (italic catchwords), not by call letters; each lemma stands in place of a call. The lemmas Singula nomina, Nomen and Communicationem refer to fragment 8, whose opening lies above the cropped foot of col 123. [lemma] (continued) Mens vero · lemma in col 121

(continued) recessit a Patre suo. Verbum meum erat apud me, et processit in vocem: Verbum Dei erat apud Patrem, et processit in carnem. Coustant.

[lemma] Singula nomina · lemma in col 123 Singula nomina, etc. Praemonet hic Athanasius, Dionysium adjecisse quod sequitur, ad amovendam alteram quorumdam suspicionem, qui aiebant: Cum Patrem dicit Dionysius, Filium non nominat; et vice versa cum Filium dicit, Patrem non memorat: sed dividit, removet ac separat Filium a Patre. Coustant.

Each of the names, etc. Athanasius notes beforehand here that Dionysius added what follows to remove another suspicion held by some, who said: When Dionysius says "Father", he does not name the Son; and conversely, when he says "Son", he does not mention the Father; but he divides, removes and separates the Son from the Father. Coustant.

[lemma] Nomen · lemma in col 123 Nomen. Hoc est quod subinde patres uno verba dixere relativum, quod scil. ita cum altero connexum est, ut unum enuntiari nequeat, quin alterum simul menti obversetur. Quocirca Hilarius lib. VII de Trinit., n. 31, de fide catholica ait: Confitendo Patrem, confessa Filium est; credens in Filium, credidit et in Patrem: quia et nomen patris habet in se filii nomen; non enim nisi per filium pater est: et significatio filii demonstratio patris est, quia nisi ex patre sit filius. Coust.

Name. This is what the fathers later called in one word relative: that which is so joined to another that the one cannot be uttered without the other being present to the mind at the same time. Hence Hilary, On the Trinity book VII, n. 31, says of the catholic faith: By confessing the Father it has confessed the Son; believing in the Son, it has believed also in the Father: because the name of father too holds within it the name of son; for one is not a father except through a son; and the meaning of son is a showing of the father, because a son is only from a father. Coustant.

[lemma] Communicationem · lemma in col 123 Communicationem. Scil. relationis, qua pater sine filio necesse nec cogitari potest. Coustant.

Communion. That is, of relation, by which a father cannot even be thought of without a son. Coustant.

[lemma] Si quis autem · lemma in col 123 Si quis autem, etc. Quo in loco Dionysius dixerit quae sequantur, Athanasius non indicat. In his certe habetur explicatior quaedam superius dictorum repetitio. Coustant.

But if anyone, etc. Athanasius does not indicate in what place Dionysius said what follows. Certainly it contains a fuller restatement of what was said above. Coustant.

(printed under page 66)

- After the first paragraph, printed run-on: "(Allata haec a S. Athanasio in Epist. de Sententia Dionysii, n. XXIII, p. 259.)" (first letter damaged; "xxiii" in small capitals). Editors' matter (source reference), not the work's; set in layer 1 as its own paragraph (QA Q3). - After section 9, printed run-on: "(Adducuntur haec ab Athanasio, ubi supra, n. XVII, p. 254.)" ("xvii" in small capitals). Editors' matter, set likewise (QA Q3).

NOTE: the call for (1) lies in col 125 above the cropped foot and was not seen. The second note is keyed by lemma; in the text above, "In principio erat Verbum" carries a call printed "(θ)" (probably a misprint for a numeral), but the note itself is printed without a number. Blotted words in the first note were read from context: "Clemente", and "[animorum?] liberi" (one word, illegible; the Greek ψυχῆς ἔγγονοι supports a word for "of the soul/mind"). (printed under page 67)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 125

Librorum suorum patres sunt. Ea mente a Clemente Alexandr. initio Stromatum dicti sunt [animorum?] liberi, ψυχῆς ἔγγονοι οἱ λόγοι. Subinde vero, n. 14, Dionysius idipsum planius explicat.

They are the fathers of their books. In this sense, at the beginning of the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, words are called children [of the mind?]: "words are offspring of the soul" (ψυχῆς ἔγγονοι οἱ λόγοι). Then, at n. 14, Dionysius explains the same thing more plainly.

(printed under page 67) (θ) ‹anchor: In principio erat Verbum› · call in col 125 (note printed with lemma, no number) In principio, etc. Athanasius, postquam verba sequentia retulit, iis Sabellium simul et Arium profligari observat, ipseque iisdem subjicit explanationem, quam consuluisse operae pretium fuerit. Coustant.

In the beginning, etc. Athanasius, after quoting the following words, observes that by them Sabellius and Arius alike are overthrown, and he himself appends an explanation of them, which it will be worth the trouble to consult. Coustant.

(printed under page 67)

- Printed run-on in the Greek column, each set in layer 1 as its own paragraph in its place (QA Q3); editors' matter (source references), not the work's ("xx", "xxi", "xviii" in small capitals): - after the opening line: "(Adducta haec a S. Athanasio, ubi supra, n. XX, p. 257.)" - after section 12: "(Profert haec S. Athanasius, ubi supra, n. XXI, p. 260.)" - after section 13: "(Adducuntur haec a S. Athanasio Ep. de Sententia Dionysii, n. XVIII. p. 256.)"

NOTE: the asterisk call stands in the full-width caption "Circa medium operis ." before § 15 (Q1, seen in the col. 128 image; the call itself is not set in the source). A stray asterisk-like mark after "aliisque" is not set. () ‹anchor: Circa medium operis› · call in col 127 Basilius tria fragmenta subsequentia nobis asservavit, ac postremum quidem primo loco proferens, praemonet ipsa a se exhiberi verba, quibus Dionysius Alexandrinus in secunda ad cognominem epistola sermonem, περὶ ἔλεγχου καὶ ἀπολογίας, finiit, seu opus de quo agimus absolvit et clausit. Tum quod nos primum ponimus, huic subjiciens, illud citat in hunc modum: Idem et circa medium scripti loquitur adversus Sabellianos. Unde palam est opus illud, quod Athanasius in quatuor libros divisum notat, a Basilio in quatuor epistolas minime fuisse distinctum; alioquin is doctor totius operis clausulam ex quarta, non ex secunda epistola laudasset. Ipse etiam subjectum Dionysii testimonium circa medium scripti haberi indicans, totum illud opus velut unum scriptum, unamve epistolam, non diversas censere se confirmat. Pluris interest observare discrimen, quo Dionysii duo idem ἀποστάσεως vocabulum usurpant. Nam Romanus hac voce substantiam seu essentiam et usiam intelligit, eaque ratione tres hypostases in Deo admittere refugit. Alexandrino vero nihil aliud hypostasis, nisi quod Latinis personae nomen, sonat. Quocirca et tres hypostases catholice praedicat. Ideo enim Dionysio aliisque qui Sabellium impugnabant, non sufficere videbatur trium personarum praedicatio, quia et Sabellius tres in Deo personas, quales unus et idem homo in theatro repraesentare potest, ultro confitebatur. Quamquam Basilius Caesariensis ep. 41, ad Maximum philosophum, Dionysium aliquando in Deo non solum ἑτερότητα ἀποστάσεως, sed et οὐσίας διαφορὰν constituisse, item ὁμοούσιον primo respuisse, ac postmodum in apologia ad cognominem missa admisisse scribit. Quo factum est, inquit, ut varius sit deprehensus et inconstans in conscriptionibus suis. Verum aliter eum, si Athanasii epistolam de sententia Dionysii tunc legisset, locuturum fuisse Baronius putat. Coustant.

Basil has preserved for us the three fragments that follow. Giving the last of them first, he notes beforehand that he is setting out the very words with which Dionysius of Alexandria, in the second letter to his namesake, ended his discourse "on refutation and defence", that is, completed and closed the work we are dealing with. Then, placing beneath it the one we put first, he cites it thus: The same also speaks, about the middle of the writing, against the Sabellians. From this it is plain that the work which Athanasius notes as divided into four books was by no means divided by Basil into four letters; otherwise that doctor would have quoted the close of the whole work from the fourth, not from the second letter. And by indicating that the testimony of Dionysius placed below is found about the middle of the writing, he confirms that he regards that whole work as one writing, or one letter, not several. It matters more to observe the difference with which the two Dionysii use the same word ἀπόστασις (hypostasis). For the Roman understands by this term substance, or essence and ousia, and for that reason shrinks from admitting three hypostases in God. To the Alexandrian, however, hypostasis means nothing other than what the name person means to Latins. Therefore he proclaims three hypostases in a catholic sense. For this is why, to Dionysius and to others who were attacking Sabellius, the proclamation of three persons did not seem enough: because Sabellius too freely confessed three persons in God, such as one and the same man can represent in the theatre. Yet Basil of Caesarea, in letter 41, to Maximus the philosopher, writes that Dionysius at one time set in God not only an otherness of hypostasis (ἑτερότητα ἀποστάσεως) but also a difference of substance (οὐσίας διαφορὰν), and likewise at first rejected the ὁμοούσιον (homoousion), and afterwards accepted it in the apology sent to his namesake. So it came about, he says, that he was found changeable and inconsistent in his writings. But Baronius thinks he would have spoken otherwise had he then read Athanasius's letter on the opinion of Dionysius. Coustant.

(printed under page 68)