S. Dionysius papa, Epistolae I seu operis adversus Sabellianos fragmentum

[Notes to the preceding dissertation (left column's notes, then right column's notes), then the Lectiones variantes of the Fragmentum.] (printed under page 59)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 109

Dionys. Rom. loc. cit. in fine fragmenti adversus Sabellium.

Dionysius of Rome, at the place cited, at the end of the fragment against Sabellius.

(printed under page 59)

(2) ‹anchor: Dionysius scribit› · call in col 109

Dionys. Rom., in frag. advers. Sabellian., n. 2, pag. 1013, apud Mansi.

Dionysius of Rome, in the fragment against the Sabellians, no. 2, p. 1013, in Mansi.

(printed under page 59)

(3) ‹anchor: factum esse testetur› · call in col 109

His concinens nicæna synodus in symbolo Filium genitum, non factum profitetur. Athanasius autem Epist. de sententia Dionysii Alexandr., n. 13, professionem illam primum ab hac synodo excogitatam non esse hinc recte probat. Cum enim, inquit, « Dionysius Romanus episcopus adversus eos etiam scripserit, qui Filium Dei rem creatam et factam dicant, liquido constat, non nunc primum, sed olim ab omnibus anathemate damnatam esse inimicorum Christi arianam hæresim. »

In agreement with these, the synod of Nicaea in its creed professes the Son "begotten, not made." And Athanasius, in the Letter on the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria, no. 13, rightly proves from this that that profession was not first devised by this synod. For since, he says, "Dionysius, bishop of Rome, also wrote against those who say that the Son of God is a thing created and made, it is plainly established that the Arian heresy of the enemies of Christ was condemned with anathema by all, not now for the first time, but long ago."

(printed under page 59)

LECTIONES VARIANTES.

VARIANT READINGS.

a Codex Reg. καταδιαιροῦντας. Montfaucon. Qui deerat editis articulus, fide hujus codicis nixus in textum recepi. Routh.

a The Royal manuscript reads καταδιαιροῦντας. Montfaucon. The article, which was lacking in the printed editions, I have received into the text, relying on the authority of this manuscript. Routh.

<!-- note: n109. The LECTIONES VARIANTES block stands at the very foot of the page (cols 109–110), set across the full page width below the opening lines of the Fragmentum (Greek right, Latin left) and below the dissertation's footnotes (1)–(5), which are left as they stand. It holds one entry, call letter a, keyed to the Greek τοὺς διαιροῦντας in §1. The Greek lemma is printed very small; read as καταδιαιροῦντας, but the accentuation and word division (possibly κατὰ διαιροῦντας) are not certain at this resolution. The entry is complete in this column. -->

(1) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 110

Etiam hic prædamnat Dionysius celebre Arii effatum, ac præcludit nicæno concilio, ad symboli sui calcem anathematizanti τοὺς λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Quocirca cum Valens Arimini in Ecclesia clamasset : « Si quis dixerit, erat tempus quando non erat Filius, anathema sit. » Hoc audito, inquit Hieronymus, Dialogo adv. Luciferianos, « Cuncti episcopi et tota simul Ecclesia plausu quodam et tripudio Valentis vocem exceperunt, rati videlicet eum plane arianam hæresim, quæ Filium creatum volebat, his verbis ejurare. »

Here too Dionysius condemns in advance Arius's famous saying, and anticipates the council of Nicaea, which at the foot of its creed anathematizes "those who say: There was when He was not." Hence when Valens at Rimini had cried out in the church, "If anyone says there was a time when the Son was not, let him be anathema," on hearing this, says Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, "all the bishops and the whole Church together received Valens's words with a kind of applause and dancing for joy, thinking that he was plainly abjuring in these words the Arian heresy, which would have the Son created."

(printed under page 59)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 110

Basil., de Spiritu sancto, cap. 29, n. 72.

Basil, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, no. 72.

(printed under page 59)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 110

Dionys. Rom., in fragm. adv. Sabellianos, num. 1, apud Mansi, pag. 1012.

Dionysius of Rome, in the fragment against the Sabellians, no. 1, in Mansi, p. 1012.

(printed under page 59)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 110

Ibid., num. 3, pag. 1016.

Ibid., no. 3, p. 1016.

(printed under page 59)

(5) ‹anchor: operibus suis› · call in col 110

Id., ibid., num. 2

The same, ibid., no. 2.

[LECTIONES VARIANTES — Variant readings] (printed under page 59)

(a) ‹anchor: πρὸς τοὺς διαιροῦντας› · call in col 110

Codex Reg. καταδιαιροῦντας. Montfaucon. Qui deerat editis articulus, fide hujus codicis nixus in textum recepi. Routh.

The Royal manuscript reads καταδιαιροῦντας. Montfaucon. The article, which was missing from the printed editions, I have admitted into the text, relying on the authority of this manuscript. Routh.

(printed under page 59)

[This page is set wholly in the editors' small type: lemma-keyed notes on the Fragmentum (no call letters). Only the lower part of each column was rendered; the notes are set from where the foot images begin. Each column's visible text starts mid-note.]

(continued) [lemma not visible; ROUTH] · col 111

… etiam sæculo Ecclesiæ secundo Theophilum Antiochenum adhibuisse, notum est. Et ante Theophilum Athenagoras in Legatione pro Christianis hæc scripserat : Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπόρησαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἙΝΩΣΕΙ δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΝ ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους ; § 10. Vid. et horum gemina in § 11. ROUTH.

… it is well known that Theophilus of Antioch also used [it] in the second century of the Church. And before Theophilus, Athenagoras had written this in the Plea for the Christians: "Who then would not be perplexed to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who show both their power in UNION and their DISTINCTION in order?" § 10. See also the counterparts of these words in § 11. Routh.

[lemma: Hypostases] · col 111 Hypostases. Dionysius noster hic cum tota sæcularium schola, ut Hieronymi ad Damasum Epist. 10, n. 4, verbis utar, nihil aliud hypostasim nisi usiam novit, et cum Ecclesia tota sacrilegam trium substantiarum prædicationem, prout substantia voci græcæ οὐσία respondet, aversatur. Jam tum tamen in ecclesia, saltem alexandrina, usu receptum erat, ut ὑποστάσεως vocabulum ad personam significandam assumeretur. Id certe colligitur ex his Origenis in Johan., tract. 2, Tres personas (τρεῖς ὑποστασεις) Patrem et Filium et Spiritum esse credimus. Idem et lib. VIII contra Celsum, Patrem et Filium δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα affirmat. Ipse Dionysius Alexandr. in epistolæ tertiæ sequentis fragmentis, n. 15. εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις eodem intellectu dicit. Unde suspicio est id, quod nunc disserit Dionysius Romanus, in Alexandrinum cadere, qui cum in Deo τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις prædicare, velut trium substantiarum seu essentiarum divinarum triumque deitatum assertor, ac monarchiæ destructor audire cœpit, quood se ab hac opinione purgaret. Immo Basilius epist. 41 eum antea usiæ seu essentiæ diversitatem inter divinas personas posuisse docet. Ubi vero Græcos ὑποστάσεως nomine personam intelligere constitit etiam latini substantiæ vocabulum ad eumdem intellectum accommodare non dubitarunt ut liquet nominatim de Augustino, lib. 7 de Trin. c. 5. n. 9. COUSTANT.

Hypostases. Our Dionysius here, "with the whole school of the secular learned," to use Jerome's words to Damasus, Letter 10, no. 4, "knows hypostasis as nothing other than usia," and with the whole Church he turns from the sacrilegious preaching of three substances, in the sense in which "substance" answers to the Greek word οὐσία. Yet already then it was accepted by usage in the church, at least the Alexandrian, that the word ὑπόστασις was taken to signify a person. That at least is gathered from these words of Origen on John, tractate 2: "We believe that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are three persons (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις)." The same writer in book 8 against Celsus affirms that the Father and the Son are "two things in hypostasis." Dionysius of Alexandria himself, in the fragments of the third letter that follows, no. 15, says "if because the hypostases are three" in the same sense. Hence there is a suspicion that what Dionysius of Rome now discusses falls upon the Alexandrian, who, when he preached τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις in God, began to be spoken of as an asserter of three divine substances or essences and of three deities, and a destroyer of the monarchy, until [quood, as printed, for quoad] he should clear himself of this opinion. Indeed Basil, letter 41, teaches that he had earlier posited a diversity of usia or essence between the divine persons. But once it was established that the Greeks understood a person by the name ὑπόστασις, the Latins too did not hesitate to adapt the word substantia to the same sense, as is clear particularly of Augustine, On the Trinity book 7, ch. 5, no. 9. Coustant.

[lemma continued: Hypostases; ROUTH] · col 111 (continues into col 112) — At veriora istis, etsi voces οὐσία et φύσις pro ὑποστάσει, persona subsistente, ut ex Photio supra notavi, a veteribus similiter adhiberi consueverunt. de Dionysii Romani sententia scripsit postea cl. Maranus in præfat. in tomum tertium Op. S. Basilii Magni : « S. Basilius in libro de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 29, citat illud Dionysii, εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις, etc. Tres ergo hypostases admittit Dionysius Alexandrinus, sed eos refellit, qui ex eo quod tres sint, divisas esse contendebant, quasi non una esset in tribus essentia. Atque id quidem accurate observandum, ut … [the rendered foot of col 112 resumes:] … scriptores, Petavius lib. IV de Trin. cap. 1, et Pet. Coustant. Epist. Rom. p. 290. » (Scil. ad Dionysii Al. Fragm. ut jam monui. Addas his scriptoribus Tillemont. Mem. Eccl. Vit. Dion. Al. § 15. ad fin.) « Uterque enim unam hypostasin asseri contendit a Dionysio Romano in hoc testimonio apud Athanas. ἑξῆς δ' ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιμι καὶ πρὸς διαιροῦντας, etc. Nulla sane inter utrumque Dionysium sententiæ varietas : uterque hypostases divisas vituperat : neque una hypostasis Romano affingi potest, cum idem prorsus dicat ac Alexandrinus. Sed potius ex eo quod tres hypostases divisas refellat, non obscura conclusio est nihil eum reprehensurum fuisse, si una in tribus hypostasibus essentia fuisset admissa. » p. VI. Hæc recte, ni fallor, Maranus. Est aliud præterea Dionysii Alex. a Basilio Magno, ibidem adductum fragmentum, quod his pauculis verbis constat. Θειοτάτη γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο. μετὰ τὴν Μονάδα καὶ ἡ Τριάς, infra p. 128, n. 15. ROUTH

— But truer than these things (although the words οὐσία and φύσις were likewise customarily used by the ancients for ὑπόστασις, a subsisting person, as I noted above from Photius) is what the celebrated Maran afterwards wrote on the opinion of Dionysius of Rome in his preface to the third volume of the Works of St Basil the Great: "St Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, quotes that saying of Dionysius, 'if because the hypostases are three,' etc. Dionysius of Alexandria therefore admits three hypostases, but refutes those who contended that, because they are three, they are divided, as though there were not one essence in the three. And this indeed must be carefully observed, that … [text above the rendered foot of col 112 not visible] … writers, Petavius, On the Trinity book 4, ch. 1, and Pierre Coustant, Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 290." (That is, on the fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, as I have already pointed out. Add Tillemont to these writers, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, Life of Dionysius of Alexandria, § 15, near the end.) "For each contends that one hypostasis is asserted by Dionysius of Rome in this testimony in Athanasius: 'Next I might fittingly speak also against those who divide,' etc. There is certainly no difference of opinion between the two Dionysii: each censures divided hypostases; nor can one hypostasis be fastened on the Roman, since he says exactly the same as the Alexandrian. Rather, from his refuting three divided hypostases, it is no obscure conclusion that he would have found nothing to blame had one essence in three hypostases been admitted." p. vi. Rightly said, unless I am mistaken, by Maran. There is besides another fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, brought forward by Basil the Great in the same place, which consists of these few words: "For this reason the Triad too is most divine after the Monad," below, p. 128, no. 15. Routh.

[lemma: Filium dicens esse Patrem et vicissim] · col 112 Filium dicens esse Patrem et vicissim. Uno verbo hanc Sabellii hæresim enuntiant ariani apud Athanasium, lib. de Synod. n. 16, dicentes illum υἱοπάτορα prædicare quod Hilarius, lib. IV de Trin. n. 12, latine convertit, ipsum dixit Filium quem Patrem. COUSTANT.

Saying that the Son is the Father, and the other way round. The Arians in Athanasius, On the Synods, no. 16, state this heresy of Sabellius in one word, saying that he preached a "Son-Father" (υἱοπάτωρ), which Hilary, On the Trinity book 4, no. 12, renders in Latin: "he said that the Son was the very one who was the Father." Coustant.

[lemma: Marcionis doctrina] · col 112 Marcionis doctrina. Notior est Marcionis hæresis, qua duo principia, unum boni, alterum mali somniavit. Cyrillus tamen Jerosol. licet catech. 6, n. 16 hanc ejus doctrinam notans, dicat eum diversos Deos statuisse, alterum bonum, et alterum justum, hoc est unum durum et severe punientem, alterum benignum et ad misericordiam propensum, catech. 16, n. 4, de discipulis illius præmittit : Nos tres Deos annuntiamus, sileant marcionistæ ; tum n. 7, de ipso magistro subjicit : Impiissimus Marcion tres Deos esse primus asseruit. Qua autem ratione hoc ab eo assereretur, Epiphanius, hær. 42, n. 3, exponit. Verum Rhodon quidam Marcioni suppar apud Eusebium lib. VII, c. 13, primum scribit : Alii perende ac Marcion duo inducunt principia ; ac paulo post adjungit : Alii rursus ab his tanquam tempestate in pejus abrepti, non duas solum, sed tres naturas posuerunt : quorum princeps et antesignanus est Syneros. Augustinus vero lib. de Hær., c. 22 Epiphanii Eusebiique sententias sic perstringit : Quamvis Epiphanius eum (Marcionem) tria dicat asseruisse principia, bonum, justum, pravum : sed Euse- (continues)

Marcion's doctrine. Better known is the heresy of Marcion, in which he dreamed of two principles, one of good, the other of evil. Yet Cyril of Jerusalem, although in Catechesis 6, no. 16, noting this doctrine of his, he says that he set up different Gods, one good and the other just, that is, one harsh and severely punishing, the other kind and inclined to mercy, in Catechesis 16, no. 4, says first of his disciples: "We proclaim three Gods: let the Marcionites be silent"; then in no. 7 he adds of the master himself: "The most impious Marcion was the first to assert that there are three Gods." On what ground this was asserted by him Epiphanius explains, Heresy 42, no. 3. But one Rhodon, nearly contemporary with Marcion, in Eusebius book 7 [as printed], ch. 13, first writes: "Others, like Marcion, bring in two principles"; and a little after adds: "Others again, swept by these as by a storm into worse, posited not two only but three natures; whose chief and standard-bearer is Syneros." Augustine, in the book On Heresies, ch. 22, touches on the opinions of Epiphanius and Eusebius thus: "Although Epiphanius says that he (Marcion) asserted three principles, good, just, and evil, yet Euse- (continues)

(printed under page 60)

LECTIONES VARIANTES.

VARIANT READINGS.

ᵃ Fortasse τομὴ καὶ διαίρεσις, et verbum ἐστὶ post δίδαγμα subauditur. Routh.

ᵃ Perhaps τομὴ καὶ διαίρεσις [in the nominative], and the verb ἐστί is understood after δίδαγμα. Routh.

COMMENTARII.

COMMENTARIES.

Monarchiam. Infra habet auctor fine ipso Fragmenti, τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγμα τῆς μοναρχίας. Vocem Τριάς etiam saeculo Ecclesiae secundo Theophilum Antiochenum adhibuisse, notum est. Et ante Theophilum Athenagoras in Legatione pro Christianis haec scripserat: Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπόρησαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἙΝΩΣΕΙ δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει ΔΙΑΙΡΕΣΙΝ ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους; § 10. Vid. et horum gemina in § 11. Routh.

Monarchy. Below, at the very end of the Fragment, the author has 'the holy preaching of the monarchy'. That Theophilus of Antioch used the word Τριάς (Trinity) already in the second century of the Church is well known. And before Theophilus, Athenagoras in the Legatio pro Christianis had written this: 'Who, then, would not be at a loss, on hearing those called atheists who speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who show both their power in the UNION and their DISTINCTION in order?' § 10. See also the counterparts of these words in § 11. Routh.

Hypostases. Dionysius noster hic cum tota saecularium schola, ut Hieronymi ad Damasum Epist. 10, n. 4, verbis utar, nihil aliud hypostasim nisi usiam novit, et cum Ecclesia tota sacrilegam trium substantiarum praedicationem, prout substantia voci graecae οὐσία respondet, aversatur. Jam tum tamen in ecclesia, saltem alexandrina, usu receptum erat, ut ὑποστάσεως vocabulum ad personam significandam assumeretur. Id certe colligitur ex his Origenis in Johan., tract. 2, Tres personas (τρεῖς ὑποστασεις) Patrem et Filium et Spiritum esse credimus. Idem et lib. VIII contra Celsum, Patrem et Filium δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα affirmat. Ipse Dionysius Alexandr. in epistolae tertiae sequentis fragmentis, n. 15. εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις eodem intellectu dicit. Unde suspicio est id, quod nunc disserit Dionysius Romanus, in Alexandrinum cadere, qui cum in Deo τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις praedicare, velut trium substantiarum seu essentiarum divinarum triumque deitatum assertor, ac monarchiae destructor audire coepit, quood se ab hac opinione purgaret. Immo Basilius epist. 41 eum antea usiae seu essentiae diversitatem inter divinas personas posuisse docet. Ubi vero Graecos ὑποστάσεως nomine personam intelligere constitit etiam latini substantiae vocabulum ad eumdem intellectum accommodare non dubitarunt ut liquet nominatim de Augustino, lib. 7 de Trin. c. 5. n. 9. Coustant.

Hypostases. Our Dionysius here, with the whole school of the secular learned (to use the words of Jerome, Epist. 10 to Damasus, n. 4), knows hypostasis as nothing other than usia, and with the whole Church shuns the sacrilegious preaching of three substances, in so far as 'substance' answers to the Greek word οὐσία. Yet even then it had been received by usage in the Church, at least the Alexandrian, that the word ὑπόστασις should be taken to signify a person. This is certainly gathered from these words of Origen on John, tract. 2: 'We believe that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are three persons (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις).' The same author also, in book VIII against Celsus, affirms that the Father and the Son are 'two things in hypostasis'. Dionysius of Alexandria himself, in the fragments of the third letter following, n. 15, says 'if, by the hypostases being three', in the same sense. Hence there is a suspicion that what Dionysius of Rome now argues bears upon the Alexandrian, who, since he preached three hypostases in God, began to be spoken of as an asserter as it were of three divine substances or essences and of three deities, and as a destroyer of the monarchy, until [sic, quood] he should clear himself of this opinion. Indeed Basil, epist. 41, teaches that he had earlier posited a diversity of usia or essence between the divine Persons. But once it was established that the Greeks understood a person by the name ὑπόστασις, the Latins too did not hesitate to accommodate the word substantia to the same sense, as is clear in particular from Augustine, De Trinitate book 7, ch. 5, n. 9. Coustant.

— At veriora istis, etsi voces οὐσία et φύσις pro ὑποστάσει, persona subsistente, ut ex Photio supra notavi, a veteribus similiter adhiberi consueverunt. de Dionysii Romani sententia scripsit postea cl. Maranus in praefat. in tomum tertium Op. S. Basilii Magni: « S. Basilius in libro de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 29, citat illud Dionysii, εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις, etc. Tres ergo hypostases admittit Dionysius Alexandrinus, sed eos refellit, qui ex eo quod tres sint, divisas esse contendebant, quasi non una esset in tribus essentia. Atque id quidem accurate observandum, ut

— But truer things than these (although the words οὐσία and φύσις were likewise customarily used by the ancients for ὑπόστασις, a subsisting person, as I noted above from Photius) were written afterwards on the opinion of Dionysius of Rome by the celebrated Maran, in the preface to the third volume of the Works of St Basil the Great: « St Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 29, cites that saying of Dionysius, 'if, by the hypostases being three', etc. Dionysius of Alexandria therefore admits three hypostases, but refutes those who, from the fact that they are three, contended that they are divided, as though there were not one essence in the three. And this indeed must be carefully observed, so that

<!-- note: col. 111, foot of the page below the author's Latin (which ends 'monarchiam' at mark B). Set here: the Lectiones variantes line (note a), the heading COMMENTARII, the note 'Monarchiam' (Routh) whole, and the note 'Hypostases' (Coustant, then Routh's continuation after the dash) as far as the foot of the left half of the commentary, ending 'observandum, ut'. The note runs on in the right half of the commentary (col. 112 side) with 'perspiciamus quam immerito Dionysium Romanum…' and ends 'infra p. 128, n. 15. Routh'; then follow the notes 'Filium dicens esse Patrem et vicissim' (Coustant) and 'Marcionis doctrina'. Join to the existing n111 at whichever of these words it opens with; drop any overlap. 'quood' (for quoad) set as printed; ae/oe ligatures normalised. --> <!-- note (Q4a): in the Footnotes copy of 'Hypostases', the Origen parenthesis is set unaccented, ὑποστασεις, as printed (agreeing with the Editors' prose copy). -->

perspiciamus quam immerito Dionysium Romanum cum Alexandrino pugnare existiment duo eximii

we may see how undeservedly two eminent

<!-- note: this is the opening of the right column of the Commentarii at the page foot (col. 112). It continues the Maran quotation from the left column, after "Atque id quidem accurate observandum, ut", and runs on into "scriptores, Petavius lib. IV de Trin. ...". In full, the clause reads "so that we may see how undeservedly two eminent writers, Petavius ..., judge that Dionysius of Rome is at variance with the Alexandrian". Only the words printed before "scriptores" are set here. The English stops at "two eminent" because the verb clause ("judge that Dionysius of Rome is at variance with the Alexandrian") cannot be finished without the subject in the next segment. -->

[This page is set wholly in the editors' small type: lemma-keyed notes on the Fragmentum (no call letters). Only the lower part of each column was rendered; the notes are set from where the foot images begin. Each column's visible text starts mid-note (the lemma of the note on monarchia is above the rendered area).]

(continued) [lemma not visible: on "monarchia"; COUSTANT] · col 113 (continues into col 114)

… Personas divinas sic distinguit, ut Dei universorum appellationem Patri tribuere videatur : at subinde mentem suam explicans, divinam Trinitatem in unitatem naturæ, qua fit ut unus universorum Deus sit, convenire aperte docet. Quod cum ita sit, cumque idem sanctus pontifex tria principia respuat ; quid monarchiæ nomine sibi velit, satis indicat, nempe unicum ab ecclesia credi rerum omnium principium. Nec ab hac sententia discrepat quod Tertullianus contra Praxeam, c. 3, dicit : Monarchiam nihil aliud significare scio, quam singulare et unicum imperium. Ideo enim unicum est imperium, quia principium est unicum. Notandum vero quomodo Tertullianus monarchiæ prædicationem cum Trinitatis fide conciliet atque componat. Exprobrarat illi Praxeas, quod monarchiam destrueret. Cui ille : Qui Filium, inquit, non aliunde deduco, sed de SUBSTANTIA PATRIS, nihil facientem sine Patris voluntate, omnem a Patre consecutum potestatem, quomodo possum de fide destruere monarchiam quam a Patre Filio traditam in Filio servo ? Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia Spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas. Quo ex loco perspicuum est et Tertullianum et Praxeam sibi mutuo objectasse, quod monarchiam destruerent ; utrique vero fuisse persuasum, fidem ab eo funditus destrui, qui monarchiam destrueret. Valde igitur hallucinatur nuperus scriptor, qui ex male intellecto libri contra Prax., c. 10, loco, in quo Praxeas ejusque asseclæ vanissimi Monarchiani nuncupantur, monarchiæ assertores non secus atque hæreticos habendos, et ita a Tertulliano habitos esse contendit. Neque vero ille eis vitio vertit quod monarchiam tenere se profiteantur, sed quod abjecta ejus vera fide illam vanissime profiteantur ; eo fere modo quo quis Christianum sibi nomen arrogantes, atque alienam a Christianis moribus ac fide ducentes vitam, recte falsos ac vanissimos Christianos appellaret, neque tamen Christianum nomen culpare aut respuere censeretur. Sic nec Prophetas damnat, qui falsos Prophetas vituperat. Sed de his hic satis. Certe Dionysio nostro monarchia est augustissima Ecclesiæ Dei prædicatio. Justini martyris exstat liber de Monarchia Dei ab Eusebio et Hieronymo laudatus. Irenæus quoque, eodem Eusebio teste, lib. v Hist., c. 20, epistolam ad Florinum de Monarchia inscripserat. Tatianus Or. contra gentes inter multa, quibus sibi exploratam divinarum Litterarum veritatem atque indubitatam docet, hoc etiam … [the rendered foot of col 114 resumes:] … Rodone habuit, hanc inficiari ausus est monarchiæ, seu unici principii, doctrinam. Ipso quippe Rodone teste apud Eusebium lib. v, c. 13, unum principium esse dicebat sicut et nostra religio. Athanasius similiter Orat. 4 cont. Arian. n. 1, in Deo proprie monarchiam esse probat. Et in Oratione contra gentes, eum qui monarchiam negaverit, atheon habendum esse non obscure docet his verbis : Ὥσπερ ἐλέγομεν τὴν πολυθεότητα ἀθεότητα, οὕτως ἀνάγκη τὴν πολυαρχίαν ἀναρχίαν εἶναι. Basilius lib. de Spir. sancto, cap. 18, hoc sibi probandum proponit, quomodo in Deo et Personas profitemur, nec proprium monarchiæ dogma excidit, καὶ τὸ εὐσεβὲς δόγμα τῆς μοναρχίας οὐ διαπίπτει. Eadem est Gregorii Nazianzeni doctrina tum Orat. 23, tum Orat. 37, ubi objectum illud diluit, εἰ Θεὸς, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Θεὸς, πῶς οὐ τρεῖς θεοί, ἢ πῶς οὐ πολυαρχία τὸ δοξαζόμενον ; Monet et Gregorius Nyss. Or. catech., c. 3, ut neque monarchiæ dominatus scindatur in diversas dissectus divinitates. His concinit Cyrillus Jerosol. catech. 6 : In monarchia autem prædicanda, inquit Epiphanius, hær. 62, n. 3, non aberramus ; sed unam Trinitatem prædicamus. Aliorum mitto ea de re testimonia : allatis tantum addo illud Augustini lib. XX, cont. Faust., c. 19 : Discat ergo Faustus, vel potius illi qui ejus litteris delectantur, monarchiæ opinionem nos ex gentibus non habere, etc. COUSTANT.

… distinguishes the divine Persons in such a way that he seems to give the title "God of all things" to the Father; but presently, explaining his mind, he plainly teaches that the divine Trinity agrees in a unity of nature, by which it comes about that there is one God of all things. Since this is so, and since the same holy pontiff rejects three principles, he shows clearly enough what he means by the name "monarchy," namely that the Church believes in a single principle of all things. Nor does what Tertullian says against Praxeas, ch. 3, differ from this view: "I know that monarchy signifies nothing other than a single and sole rule." For the rule is single for this reason, that the principle is single. But it should be noted how Tertullian reconciles and harmonizes the preaching of the monarchy with faith in the Trinity. Praxeas had reproached him with destroying the monarchy. To which he says: "I, who derive the Son from nowhere else but from the SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, doing nothing without the Father's will, having received all power from the Father, how can I destroy the monarchy from the faith, when I keep in the Son the monarchy handed by the Father to the Son? Let this be said by me of the third degree too, since I hold that the Spirit is from nowhere else than from the Father through the Son. See then that it is not rather you who destroy the monarchy." From this passage it is evident that Tertullian and Praxeas each charged the other with destroying the monarchy, but that both were convinced that the faith is utterly destroyed by one who destroys the monarchy. A recent writer, then, is badly mistaken who, from a misunderstood passage of the book against Praxeas, ch. 10, in which Praxeas and his followers are called "most empty Monarchians," contends that the asserters of the monarchy are to be held as heretics, and were so held by Tertullian. For he does not fault them for professing to hold the monarchy, but for professing it most emptily, having cast off the true faith in it; in much the way that one would rightly call those who claim the Christian name for themselves while leading a life foreign to Christian morals and faith false and most empty Christians, and yet would not be thought to blame or reject the Christian name. So too he who censures false prophets does not condemn the Prophets. But enough of this here. Certainly for our Dionysius the monarchy is "the most august preaching of the Church of God." There survives a book of Justin Martyr On the Monarchy of God, praised by Eusebius and Jerome. Irenaeus too, on the witness of the same Eusebius, History book 5, ch. 20, had entitled a letter to Florinus On the Monarchy. Tatian, in the Oration against the Greeks, among many things by which he shows that the truth of the divine Scriptures was ascertained by him and beyond doubt, this also … [text above the rendered foot of col 114 not visible] … had from Rhodon, dared to deny this doctrine of the monarchy, or of a single principle. For on the witness of Rhodon himself in Eusebius, book 5, ch. 13, he said that there is "one principle, as our religion also says." Athanasius likewise, Oration 4 against the Arians, no. 1, proves that there is properly a monarchy in God. And in the Oration against the Gentiles he teaches plainly enough that one who denies the monarchy is to be held an atheist, in these words: "As we said that polytheism is atheism, so polyarchy must necessarily be anarchy." Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, ch. 18, sets himself to prove how, while we profess Persons in God, the proper dogma of the monarchy has not fallen away, "and the godly dogma of the monarchy does not collapse." The same is the teaching of Gregory Nazianzen, both in Oration 23 and in Oration 37, where he disposes of that objection: "If God, and God, and God, how are they not three Gods, or how is what is glorified not a polyarchy?" Gregory of Nyssa too, Catechetical Oration, ch. 3, warns that the dominion of the monarchy is not to be split, cut up into different divinities. With these agrees Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6. "In preaching the monarchy," says Epiphanius, Heresy 62, no. 3, "we do not go astray; but we preach one Trinity." I pass over other testimonies on the matter; to those brought forward I add only that of Augustine, Against Faustus book 20, ch. 19: "Let Faustus learn, then, or rather those who delight in his writings, that we do not have the belief in the monarchy from the Gentiles," etc. Coustant.

[lemma: Dominum factum esse] · col 114 Dominum factum esse. Blasphemiæ huic, quam postea Arius impie propugnavit, oppositam fidem professus esse atque Arianum dogma palam respuisse ariminensis concilii Patribus visus est Valens, cum teste Hieronymo, dial. cont. Lucifer., callide clamavit : Si quis dixerit creaturam Filium Dei ut sunt cæteræ creaturæ, anathema sit. Ubi vero ille cum sociis jactare cœpit, se Filium non creaturam negasse, sed similem cæteris creaturis ; merito contestabantur episcopi hac fraude delusi, qui sine conscientia hæretici ferebantur, se nihil mali id sua fide suspicatos. Putavimus, aiebant, sensum congruere verbis : nec in Ecclesia Dei, ubi simplicitas, ubi pura confessio est, aliud in corde clausum esse, aliud in labiis proferri timuimus. COUSTANT.

That the Lord was made. To the Fathers of the council of Rimini, Valens seemed to profess the faith opposed to this blasphemy, which Arius afterwards impiously championed, and openly to reject the Arian dogma, when, as Jerome witnesses in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, he cunningly cried out: "If anyone says that the Son of God is a creature as the other creatures are, let him be anathema." But when he and his companions began to boast that he had denied, not that the Son was a creature, but that He was like the other creatures, the bishops deceived by this fraud, who were being reported as heretics without knowing it, rightly protested that they had suspected no evil in that faith of theirs. "We thought," they said, "that the meaning agreed with the words; nor did we fear that in the Church of God, where there is simplicity, where there is pure confession, one thing would be shut in the heart and another brought out on the lips." Coustant.

[lemma: Illum genitum esse] · col 114 Illum genitum esse. His concinens nicæna synodus in symbolo, Filium genitum, non factum profitetur. Athanasius autem Epist. de sententia Dion., n. 13, professionem illam primum ab hac synodo excogitatam non esse hinc recte probat : Cur enim, inquit, Dionysius, romanus episcopus, adversus eos etiam scripserit, qui Filium Dei rem creatam et factam dicunt, (continues)

That He was begotten. In agreement with these, the synod of Nicaea in its creed professes the Son "begotten, not made." And Athanasius, in the Letter on the opinion of Dionysius, no. 13, rightly proves from this that that profession was not first devised by this synod: "For since," he says, "Dionysius, bishop of Rome, also wrote against those who say that the Son of God is a thing created and made, (continues)

(printed under page 61)

LECTIONES VARIANTES.

VARIANT READINGS.

a Reg. δοξάσαντας. Basil. δοξάζοντες. Et alia manu γρ. δοξάσαντας. Montfaucon.

a The Regius has δοξάσαντας. Basil has δοξάζοντες. And in another hand, "γρ. [read] δοξάσαντας". Montfaucon.

COMMENTARII.

COMMENTARIES.

…bius Synerum quemdam, non Marcionem, trium principiorum atque naturarum scribit auctorem. COUSTANT.

…bius writes that a certain Synerus, not Marcion, was the author of the three principles and natures. COUSTANT.

In tria Principia. Superius quidem Dionysius tres Personas divinas sic distinguit, ut Dei universorum appellationem Patri tribuere videatur: at subinde mentem suam explicans, divinam Trinitatem in unitatem naturae, qua fit ut unus universorum Deus sit, convenire aperte docet. Quod cum ita sit, cumque idem sanctus pontifex tria principia respuat; quid monarchiae nomine sibi velit, satis indicat, nempe unicum ab ecclesia credi rerum omnium principium. Nec ab hac sententia discrepat quod Tertullianus contra Praxeam, c. 3, dicit: Monarchiam nihil aliud significare scio, quam singulare et unicum imperium. Ideo enim unicum est imperium, quia principium est unicum. Notandum vero quomodo Tertullianus monarchiae praedicationem cum Trinitatis fide conciliet atque componat. Exprobrarat illi Praxeas, quod monarchiam destrueret. Cui ille: Qui Filium, inquit, non aliunde deduco, sed de SUBSTANTIA PATRIS, nihil facientem sine Patris voluntate, omnem a Patre consecutum potestatem, quomodo possum de fide destruere monarchiam quam a Patre Filio traditam in Filio servo? Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia Spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas. Quo ex loco perspicuum est et Tertullianum et Praxeam sibi mutuo objectasse, quod monarchiam destruerent; utrique vero fuisse persuasum, fidem ab eo funditus destrui, qui monarchiam destrueret. Valde igitur hallucinatur nuperus scriptor, qui ex male intellecto libri contra Prax., c. 10, loco, in quo Praxeas ejusque asseclae vanissimi Monarchiani nuncupantur, monarchiae assertores non secus atque haereticos habendos, et ita a Tertulliano habitos esse contendit. Neque vero ille eis vitio vertit quod monarchiam tenere se profiteantur, sed quod abjecta ejus vera fide illam vanissime profiteantur; eo fere modo quo quis Christianum sibi nomen arrogantes, atque alienam a Christianis moribus ac fide ducentes vitam, recte falsos ac vanissimos Christianos appellaret, neque tamen Christianum nomen culpare aut respuere censeretur. Sic nec Prophetas damnat, qui falsos Prophetas vituperat. Sed de his hic satis. Certe Dionysio nostro monarchia est augustissima Ecclesiae Dei praedicatio. Justini martyris exstat liber de Monarchia Dei ab Eusebio et Hieronymo laudatus. Irenaeus quoque, eodem Eusebio teste, lib. v Hist., c. 20, epistolam ad Florinum de Monarchia inscripserat. Tatianus Or. contra gentes inter multa, quibus sibi exploratam divinarum Litterarum veritatem atque indubitatam docet, hoc etiam

Into three Principles. Above, indeed, Dionysius so distinguishes the three divine Persons that he seems to assign the title "God of all things" to the Father; but presently, explaining his mind, he plainly teaches that the divine Trinity comes together into a unity of nature, whereby it comes about that there is one God of all things. Since this is so, and since the same holy pontiff rejects three principles, he shows clearly enough what he means by the name of monarchy, namely that the Church believes in a single principle of all things. Nor does what Tertullian says against Praxeas, ch. 3, disagree with this view: "I know that monarchy signifies nothing other than a single and unique rule." For the rule is unique for this reason, that the principle is unique. But it should be noted how Tertullian reconciles and harmonizes the preaching of the monarchy with faith in the Trinity. Praxeas had reproached him with destroying the monarchy. To whom he replies: "I, who derive the Son from no other source but from the SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER, doing nothing without the Father's will, having obtained all power from the Father, how can I destroy from the faith the monarchy which I keep in the Son as handed down by the Father to the Son? Let this be said by me with regard to the third degree also, since I hold that the Spirit is from no other source than from the Father through the Son. See, then, that it is not rather you who destroy the monarchy." From this passage it is clear both that Tertullian and Praxeas cast at each other the charge of destroying the monarchy, and that both were persuaded that the faith is utterly destroyed by one who destroys the monarchy. Greatly mistaken, therefore, is a recent writer who, from a misunderstood passage of the book against Praxeas, ch. 10, in which Praxeas and his followers are called "most vain Monarchians", contends that the upholders of the monarchy were to be held no otherwise than as heretics, and were so held by Tertullian. For he does not impute it to them as a fault that they profess to hold the monarchy, but that, having cast away the true faith in it, they profess it most vainly; in much the same way as one who rightly called false and most vain Christians those who arrogate to themselves the Christian name and yet lead a life foreign to Christian morals and faith would not thereby be judged to blame or reject the Christian name. So neither does he condemn the Prophets who reproves false prophets. But enough of these things here. Certainly to our Dionysius the monarchy is the most august preaching of the Church of God. There is extant a book of Justin Martyr On the Monarchy of God, praised by Eusebius and Jerome. Irenaeus too, on the testimony of the same Eusebius, Hist. book v, ch. 20, had entitled a letter to Florinus On the Monarchy. Tatian, in his Oration against the Greeks, among the many things by which he shows that the truth of the divine Scriptures had been tested by him and was beyond doubt, this also

<!-- note: Col. 113 holds no editors' prose in the author's text; this is the foot-of-page matter under col. 113 only. The LECTIONES VARIANTES heading and its one line (which runs across the page to "Montfaucon.") stand below the text; then the COMMENTARII heading. The left half opens mid-note with the tail of the previous note ("…bius Synerum…COUSTANT.", the word broken from the preceding column); then Coustant's note "In tria Principia" (on monarchia) begins and runs to the column foot ending "hoc etiam", continuing in col. 114 ("commemorat, quod unam universorum monarchiam…", not set here). Several words at the left edge of the lower half are blotted by heavy ink and were read from context (e.g. respuat, Monarchiani, secus, habitos, abjecta, fere, arrogantes, ducentes, Christianos appellaret, culpare, damnat, hic satis, augustissima, exstat, Hieronymo, teste, Monarchia, inter multa, Litterarum veritatem); verify against a cleaner scan. The variant's Basil reading looks like δοξάζοντες (text has δοξάζοντας); kept as seen. -->

commemorat, quod unam universorum monarchiam (τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικὸν) statuerent. Ne Apelles quidem, Marcionis discipulus, in colloquio, quod cum

records, that they established one monarchy of all things (τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικὸν). Not even Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, in the colloquy which he held with

<!-- note: this is the fragment that n113 marks as not visible. It is the opening of the right-hand column of the Commentarii at the foot of col. 114 (page 61), lines 1–3: from "commemorat" to "quod cum". It follows "Tatianus ... hoc etiam" at the foot of the left-hand column and runs on into "Rodone habuit, hanc inficiari ausus est monarchiae ..." in the same line. Only the words in place of the marker are set here; the sentence carries on beyond this fragment. The editorial headings in this column (LECTIONES VARIANTES, COMMENTARII) and the other notes are not set here. -->

[Two blocks of editors' matter at the page foot: the LECTIONES VARIANTES (variant readings, lettered calls in the Greek of col 116), then the COMMENTARII (lemma-keyed notes), which begin mid-note.] [LECTIONES VARIANTES — Variant readings] (printed under page 62)

(a) ‹anchor: εἴ γε› · call in col 116

Sic Reg. ut et exigit sensus. Editi et alii ἃ δή. Monlf.

So the Royal manuscript, as the sense also requires. The printed editions and others have ἃ δή. Montfaucon.

(printed under page 62)

(b) ‹anchor: τῆς δόξης ταύτης› · call in col 116

Sic Reg. Alii vero et editi omittunt ταύτης. Mox Reg. pro ἢ habet ᾗ. Montfaucon. Sed hoc posteriori loco ταύτῃ in αὐτῇ mutandum videtur. Routh.

So the Royal manuscript. The others and the printed editions omit ταύτης. Just after, the Royal manuscript has ᾗ for ἢ. Montfaucon. But in this latter place ταύτῃ seems to need changing to αὐτῇ. Routh.

(printed under page 62)

(c) ‹anchor: βούλεται ταύτῃ› · call in col 116

Fortasse αὐτῇ. Routh.

Perhaps αὐτῇ. Routh.

(printed under page 62)

(d) ‹anchor: λέγοιτ' ἂν ἐπὶ› · call in col 116

Sic Mss. et ed. Commel. Cæterum ἐπὶ idem hic significat ac ἀντὶ (edit. prior. lectio). Mox τὸ κτίσαι, quod abest ab ed. Commel. restituimus ex manuscriptis Reg. et Basil. hancque vocem legerunt Nannius et Ambros. Camald. Montfaucon. Sed et in ed. priori Paris. τὸ κτίσαι extat. Routh.

So the manuscripts and Commelin's edition. Moreover ἐπί here means the same as ἀντί (the reading of the earlier edition). Just after, τὸ κτίσαι, which is missing from Commelin's edition, we have restored from the Royal and Basle manuscripts; and Nannius and Ambrose the Camaldolese read this word. Montfaucon. But τὸ κτίσαι stands in the earlier Paris edition too. Routh.

(printed under page 62)

(e) ‹anchor: τὰ ψεύδη› · call in col 116

Reg. et Basil. ψευδῆ. Montfaucon.

The Royal and Basle manuscripts read ψευδῆ. Montfaucon.

(printed under page 62)

(f) ‹anchor: ποιήσει κωλύειν› · call in col 116

Anne legendum κολούειν pro κωλύειν ? Routh.

Should κολούειν ("to curtail") perhaps be read for κωλύειν ("to hinder")? Routh.

[COMMENTARII — Commentary]

(continued) [lemma: Illum genitum esse; COUSTANT] · col 115

liquido constat, non nunc primum, sed olim ab omnibus anathemate damnatam esse inimicorum Christi Arianorum hæresim. COUSTANT.

it is plainly established that the heresy of the Arians, the enemies of Christ, was condemned with anathema by all, not now for the first time, but long ago." Coustant.

[lemma: Tempus quando non erat] · col 115 (continues into col 116) Tempus quando non erat. Etiam hic prædamnat Dionysius celebre Arii effatum, ac præludit Nicæno concilio, ad symboli sui calcem anathematizanti τοὺς λέγοντας· Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. Quocirca cum Valens Arimini in Ecclesia clamasset, Si quis dixerit : Erat tempus quando non erat Filius, anathema sit ; hoc audito, inquit Hieronymus, dial. adv. Lucif., cuncti episcopi et tota simul Ecclesia plausu quodam et tripudio Valentis vocem exceperunt, rati videlicet eum plane Arianam hæresim, quæ Filium creatum volebat, his verbis ejurare. COUSTANT. — Ibidem ex Hieronymo constat, Valentem alia plurima et ipsum pronuntiasse, et Claudio pronuntianti consensisse, quæ cum alienis a Catholica fide dogmatibus conciliare difficile crediderim. Exempli gratia, ipse ait Valens : Si quis dixerit de nullis extantibus Filium, et non de Deo Patre, anathema sit ; atque Claudio hæc proferenti idem ille assensit : Si quis dixerit Filium Dei esse quidem ante omnia sæcula, sed non ante omne omnino tempus, ut ei aliquid anteferat, anathema sit. ROUTH.

A time when He was not. Here too Dionysius condemns in advance Arius's famous saying, and forestalls the council of Nicaea, which at the foot of its creed anathematizes "those who say: There was when He was not." Hence when Valens at Rimini had cried out in the church, "If anyone says, There was a time when the Son was not, let him be anathema," on hearing this, says Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, all the bishops and the whole Church together received Valens's words with a kind of applause and dancing for joy, thinking that he was plainly abjuring in these words the Arian heresy, which would have the Son created. Coustant. — It is clear from Jerome in the same place that Valens both pronounced a great many other things himself and agreed with Claudius when he pronounced them, which I should think hard to reconcile with dogmas foreign to the Catholic faith. For example, Valens himself says: "If anyone says that the Son is from nothing existing, and not from God the Father, let him be anathema"; and when Claudius put forward the following, he likewise assented: "If anyone says that the Son of God is indeed before all ages, but not before absolutely all time, so as to set something before Him, let him be anathema." Routh.

(printed under page 62)