About Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, namely, that he, like the Council of Nicea, thinks contrary to the Arian heresy, and in vain the Arians slander him, as if he were of the same mind with them

In the letter “About Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, namely, that he, like the Council of Nicea, thinks contrary to the Arian heresy, and in vain the Arians slander him, as if he were of the same mind with them” (27 chapters, 351-355) St. Athanasius the Great defends his predecessor in the department from accusations of Arianism, since the Arians interpreted his writings in their favor. The reason for its composition was the abuse by the Arians of the letter addressed to St. Dionysius to the Alexandrian bishops Euphranor and Ammonius. St. Athanasius asserts that his famous predecessor, using expressions cited by the Arians, speaks not of the Word, but of Christ, considered in His human nature. In his epistle the saint refutes the arguments of the Arians and shows that St. Dionysius thought about the Son of God in a completely Orthodox way and was completely alien to Arian opinions. *The title of the work in Greek is Ἐπιστολὴ περὶ Διονυσίου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ̓Αλεξανδρείας. *The title of the work in Latin is Epistula de sententia Dionysii. 1. You reported late about the recent conversation you had with the Christ-fighters; for before your goodwill wrote about this, out of curiosity I already knew this, and listened to such a story with pleasure; why, he approved of your reverence because you think well of our blessed Fathers, but the Arians recognized the foolishness of this act. since their heresy has nothing solid, and does not present a single saying from the Divine Scripture as proof; they always invented shameless pretexts and false ideas that had the appearance of plausibility, but now they dared to slander the Fathers. And this is not at all alien, but on the contrary, it is very characteristic of their evil mind. If they decided to learn “from the Lord and from His Christ” (Ps. 2:2); What is surprising if they slander the Bishop of Alexandria Dionysius of blessed memory, as if he were of one mind and of the same wisdom with them? For if they apparently praise him to confirm their heresy, they even call him blessed; then, not just in any way, but seriously slander him, like some robbers and people of dishonest character, who, when they reproach them for their own actions, count chaste men among themselves, telling lies about their chastity. 2. Therefore, if you are firmly convinced of what they think and say, let them present the heresy in its nakedness, and indicate if, in their opinion, there is either anything in Scripture, or any pious human thought, that serves to justify it. And if they have nothing of the kind, then let them remain silent. Nowhere will they find anything except self-conviction. They will not find it in the Scriptures; because John says: “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) - that Word about which they claim that He did not exist until He was born. David, from the Father’s face, sings: “My heart will vomit out the good Word” (Ps. 44:2) - that Word, which, according to them, exists only by imagination and came into being out of nothing. Then John again preaches the gospel: everything “was made, and without Him came into nothing” (John 1:3). And Paul writes: “there is one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6); and in another place: “For in Him all things were created” (Col. 1:16). Where will they find the courage, or, better yet, what shame must they endure, opposing the sayings of the saints and asserting that the Creator of everything is a work, and the One by whom everything came into being and exists is a creature? There is not even any human pious thought left for them to justify. For what kind of person, Greek or barbarian, would dare to say that the God he professes is a creature? Or - that He did not exist until He came into being? Or what man, hearing how the One who, according to his belief, alone is God, says: “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17), and: “My heart will vomit out the Word of good” (Ps. 45:2), - dare to say that the Word, vomited by God’s heart, came from the non-existent, or - the Son is a creature, and not the own birth of Him who calls Him Son? And again: who, hearing how the One who, according to his belief, is the Lord and Savior, says: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), and: “I am one and the Father” (John 10:30), - decides to divide what He has united and kept inseparable? 3. And they themselves, seeing this and not daring to rely on their own reasoning, lie to the pious. But, since they are meager in everything, they see for themselves that they are completely bewildered and amazed by the questions offered from everywhere; then it would be better for them to repent, turning away from the path of error, and not to count among themselves those whom they do not know, so that when they are exposed, they would not suffer greater shame. However, perhaps they will never want to lag behind such treachery. For in this too they were jealous of those who were with Caiaphas, just as they also learned from them how to renounce Christ. And those - when the Lord had done so many deeds by which He made it clear that He was Christ, the Son of the living God - those convicted by Him, reasoned about everything and spoke everything contrary to the Scriptures, and, being unable to boldly withstand the reproof even for a little while, they resorted to the Patriarch, saying: “Father of the imams of Abraham” (Matthew 3:9), and thought that they could cover up their foolishness with this. But just as those who said this did not gain any benefit for themselves, so these, calling Dionysius the same as those, will not be able to avoid a similar accusation. And the Lord convicted them for their iniquities, saying: “These things Abraham did not do” (John 8:40), and these wicked and deceitful ones are also exposed by the truth itself; because Bishop Dionysius never adhered to Aryan thoughts and the truth was not unknown to him. But both the Jews of that time and the new ones today inherited the madness against Christ from their father the devil. And that they say this unfairly and slander Dionysius - an important proof of this is that he was not overthrown from the bishopric, condemned by other bishops for wickedness, as they were expelled from the clergy, and he himself did not leave the Church, as a defender of heresy, but rested well in it, and to this day his memory remains and is written with the Fathers. But if he had held the same thoughts as them, or had not been justified in what he wrote; then there is no doubt that, of course, he would have been subjected to the same lot with them. 4. And this would be enough to completely condemn the new Jews, who deny the Lord, slander the Fathers, and attempt to deceive all Christians. But since they think that they have pretexts for slandering the Bishop, namely, some passages in his message; then let us consider them too, so that their vanity can be seen from this, and so that they, although late, stop their blasphemy against the Lord, and even though they confess Him with the soldiers, seeing how the creation testifies that “truly this is the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54), and not one of the creatures. So, they say that Dionysius of blessed memory said in his letter: “The Son of God is a work and created, and He is not in fellowship with the Father by nature, but is alien to Him in essence; The Father is to Him what the worker is to the vine and the shipbuilder is to the boat; and, as a work, the Son was not until He received being.” This is what Dionysius wrote, and we admit that this is his message; but as he wrote this epistle, so he wrote very many other epistles; and they had to read them too, so that the Dionysian faith would be visible from all the epistles, and not from just one; because when a shipbuilder has built many ships, his art is judged not by one ship, but by all of them. So, if the epistle they indicate was written by him simply, as setting out faith in it, or he wrote this one epistle; then let them accuse him however they like. Such thoughts are truly reprehensible. And if there was a pretext in time and person that lured him to write in this way, he also wrote other messages, justifying himself in what he was suspected of; then they should also, without losing sight of these reasons, not rashly arouse hatred against Dionysius; otherwise they will think of them that they only catch words, and ignore the truth contained in other messages. And the farmer takes different care of each of his trees, depending on the real quality of the land, and no one will blame him for pruning one tree, grafting another, planting one and uprooting another; on the contrary, anyone who knows the reason well will be amazed at the variety of his information. So, if they did not read the works of Dionysius superficially, then let them tell the contents of the message; for in this way their slander and the deceit of their will will become apparent. since they either do not know or are ashamed to say; then we need to do it. 5. In the Pentapolis of upper Libya, some bishops then adhered to the Sabellian way of thinking, and these inventions had such power that it was not enough that they no longer preached about the Son of God in the churches. Having learned this, Dionysius (since he had care of those churches) sends and advises the perpetrators to stop their evil faith. But as they did not stop, they began to dishonor with even greater shamelessness; then, to their shamelessness, he was forced to write such a message and from the Gospels to present to them what is human in the Savior, so that, since they boldly denied the Son, and what was human in Him, they attributed to the Father, thus proving that it was not the Father, but the Son who became man for us, to convince the ignorant that the Father is not the Son, and gradually elevate them to the true Divinity of the Son and to the knowledge of the Father. This is the content of this message; and for this reason he wrote this way, for the sake of those who wanted to transform the true faith with such shamelessness. 6. Therefore, in what ways are the Aryan heresy and the Dionysian thought similar to each other? Or why is Dionysius called Arius when there is a big difference between them? One is a teacher of the universal Church, and the other became the inventor of a new heresy. And Arius, expressing his own evil faith, wrote Thalia in an effeminate and ridiculous meter, following the example of the Egyptian Sotad, and Dionysius wrote other messages, was justified in what he was suspected of, and turned out to be right. Therefore, if he writes something contrary to himself, then let them not appropriate it to themselves; because in this respect he does not deserve to be believed. If, having written a letter to Ammonius, he was subject to suspicion, but was justified, correcting the previous one, and having been justified, he did not change his thoughts; it is clear that what aroused suspicion was written by him according to special consideration. But what is written or done according to special consideration should not be taken in a bad direction and should be interpreted by everyone according to his own desire. And the doctor often applies something that seems unsuitable for others to a certain type of ulcer, as he himself knows, with no other intention than health. And a prudent teacher uses this method - to apply to the properties of the students and speak in this way until he leads them on the path of perfection. 7. If this man of blessed memory is blamed for having written only in this way (for what the Arians put forward in his praise turns to his guilt); What will they do when they hear the Great and Blessed Apostles in the Acts? Peter says: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man known by God in you with miracles and signs and wonders, even as God did in the midst of you, as... you knew, He was delivered over by the counsel and wisdom of God, nailed by the hand of the wicked, killed” (Acts 2:22-23); and again: “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom you crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, for this reason this one stands before you healthy” (Acts 4:10). And Paul explains in Antioch of Pisidia that God “deposed Saul, raised up... David as king, and he also said, testifying: I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do... My desires. From this seed, according to the promise, raised up the Savior Jesus to Israel” (Acts 13:22–23); and also in Athens he says: “Despising the years of ignorance, God now commands man to repent everywhere: He has not appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness, concerning the Man whom He has ordained, giving faith to all, having raised Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). Or, the great martyr Stephen says: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). So, by the way, they should now have the audacity (for what would they not dare?) and say that the Apostles themselves philosophized in the Arian way; because Christ is called the man of Nazareth and the sufferer. 8. And since they imagine such things, did the Apostles, when they used these sayings, really regard Christ as nothing more than a simple man? Let this not happen! It is not permissible to even admit such a thought to yourself. On the contrary, in this they acted as wise architects and “builders of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), and they have a good reason for this. since the Jews of that time, themselves being in error and misleading the pagans, thought that Christ was a simple man and came from the seed of David, in the likeness of other children descended from David, and did not believe that He was God, and that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14); Therefore, for this very reason, the blessed Apostles very wisely explained to the Jews first that there is humanity in the Savior, so that, by visible and former signs, they would be completely convinced of the coming of Christ, and then lead them to faith in His Divinity, proving that the deeds He accomplished were not characteristic of man, but of God. It was Peter who, calling Christ a man of service, soon added that He is “the Ruler... life" (Acts 3:15), in the Gospel he confesses: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), and in the Epistle he says that He is the "Visitor of souls" (1 Peter 2:25), and the Lord of himself, and of the angels, and of powers (1 Peter 3:22). Likewise, Paul, who says that Christ is a man of the seed of David, himself wrote in his epistle to the Hebrews: “Who is the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3), and in the epistle to the Philippians: “He who is in the image of God is not equal with God through admiration” (Phil. 2:6). And to say that He is the Head of life, the Son of God, radiance and image, equal to God, the Lord and Visitor of souls, which means something else - isn’t it the same thing that the Word of God was in the body, by whom everything received being, and that He is inseparable from the Father, like radiance from light? 9. Therefore, Dionysius did the same, having learned from the Apostles. since the Sabellian heresy had crept in, he was forced, according to what was said above, to write such a letter, and in opposition to them to present what was said about the Savior in a human and humiliating way, so that, by pointing to the human, he would take away from them the opportunity to assert that the Son is the Father himself, to make for them more acceptable the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son, when in other letters he would be called, according to the Scriptures, the Word, Wisdom, power, "steam" (Wisdom 7:25) and the radiance of the Father. At least, speaking this way in the epistles he wrote in his justification, he boldly expresses himself about faith in Christ and piety. Therefore, just as the Apostles are not subject to blame for speaking about the Lord pointing to humanity, because the Lord became a man, but they are all the more worthy of surprise for their special look and for their teaching, adapted to the times: so Dionysius is not an Arian for his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against Sabellius. For if he used low words and examples, then he borrowed this from the Gospels; and the pretext for using them is the appearance of the Savior in the flesh, according to which this and the like are written about Him. Just as He is the Word of God, so later “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), and “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), and at the end of the ages the Virgin had Him in her womb (Matthew 1:18), and the Lord became man. And although He alone is signified by both - because “the Word became flesh” - nevertheless, the words used about His Divinity and about His incarnation have their own interpretation, in accordance with what exactly is meant. And whoever writes about what the Word has received of humanity also knows about His Divinity. And whoever talks about the Divine does not know what is characteristic of His appearance in the flesh. But, distinguishing between one and the other, like a knowledgeable and well-skilled tradesman, he walks the straight path of piety. And when he imagines Him crying, he knows that the Lord, having become a man, as he shows that crying is a human thing, so resurrects Lazarus as God; He knows that just as He hungers and thirsts physically, so divinely He satisfies five thousand with five loaves; knows that the human body lies in the tomb, but, like the body of God, is resurrected by the Word itself. 10. Teaching this, Dionysius also wrote in his epistle to Euphranor and Ammonius for the sake of Sabellius what was said about the Savior in human terms. For in human terms it is said about Him: “I am a vine, and the Father is a worker” (John 15:1), and: “He is faithful to Him who created Him” (Heb. 3:2), and: “created” (Prov. 8:22), and: “he was only better than the angels” (Heb. 1:4). But this is also not unknown to Dionysius: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me” (John 14:10), and: “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). For we know that he wrote this in other epistles, and even there, writing this, he remembered the humanity of the Lord. Just as “in the form of God, He was not equal to God through admiration, but He made Himself a little lower, taking on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6–7), and “He is rich for our poverty” (2 Cor. 8:9): so with such lofty and rich sayings about His Divinity, there are also humble and poor expressions about His appearance in the flesh. And what is said about the Savior according to humanity, we have the right to conclude from the following. The worker, in essence, is alien to the vine, and the rods are consubstantial and akin to the vine and are not separate from it; they, like the vine, have the same origin; but, as the Lord said, He is “the vine, we are the generation” (John 15:5). Therefore, if the Son is of one essence with us and has one origin with us; then in this respect the Son will be essentially alien to the Father, just as the vine is alien to the worker. And if the Son is not what we are, and He is the Father’s Word, and we are created from the earth, and are Adam’s descendants: then this saying should not refer to the Divinity of the Word, but to His already human manifestation; because the Savior said this: “I am the vine, you... are the birth,... the Father is the worker.” We are related to the Lord in body; which is why He said: “I will proclaim Your name to My brethren” (Heb. 2:12). And just as the rods are of one essence with the vine and come from it, so we, having bodies similar to the body of the Lord, are acceptable from His fulfillment (John 1:16), and His body for us is the root of resurrection and salvation. The father is called a worker; because He made the vine with His Word, that is, the humanity of the Savior, and with His Word Himself prepared for us the way to the kingdom. “And no one comes to the Lord unless the Father draws him to Him” (John 6:44). 11. Since this saying has such an interpretation, it was necessary to write about the vine named in this sense: “the being is faithful to him who created Him,” and: “only the best of the Angels,” and: “created.” For when He took upon himself what He wanted to offer for us, and this was the body of the Virgin Mary; then it is written about Him that He was created and created, and received being; because such expressions are decent for people. Moreover, it was not by taking on a body that He became better than the Angels; otherwise it will turn out that before he was less than them or equal to them. On the contrary, the Apostle, writing to the Jews and comparing the human ministry of the Lord with the ministry of Moses, said: “He was only better than the Angels; for the law was spoken by angels” (Heb. 1:4, 2:2); “For the law was given by Moses, and grace and the giving of the Spirit were made by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). And then from Dan to Beersheba the law was proclaimed, and now “their message went out into all the land” (Ps. 18:5); and the pagans worship Christ, and through Him they know the Father. So, this is written about the Savior according to humanity, and not otherwise. 12. Therefore, did Dionysius, as the Christ-fighters proclaim, when writing about the humanity of the Son and in this regard calling Him a work, said that He is one of men? Or, saying that the Word is not the property of the Father’s essence, did you think that It is of one essence with us humans? But this is not what he wrote in other epistles; on the contrary, he turns out to be right in them, and with these epistles he can object to them, saying: “I am not of the same opinion with you, God-fighters; It was not my words that served Arius as a pretext for wickedness; On the contrary, writing to Ammon and Euphranor regarding the Sabellians, I mentioned the worker and the vine and other similar sayings, so that, having proven the humanity of the Lord, I would convince them to no longer assert that the Father became a man. Just as the worker is not the vine, so what appeared in the body is not the Father, but the Word; The Word, which appeared in the vine, was called the vine because of its bodily affinity with the rods, by which we are meant. So, in this sense, I wrote to Euphranor and Ammonius, and I contrast your shamelessness with other messages I wrote, so that prudent people would know my justification contained in them and the right reasoning about faith in Christ.” Therefore, the Arians, if they had a sound mind, should have reasoned and thought similarly about the Bishop. “All rights are to those who understand, and rights to those who gain understanding” (Proverbs 8:9). since, having not learned the faith of the universal Church, they fell into wickedness, and having already become blinded by their minds, they consider what is right to be obstinate, and they call light darkness, and they consider darkness light; then, to further condemn the heretics, it is necessary to present passages from other Dionysian epistles and the reason for their writing. For, having gleaned information from these messages, we also reason and write about this man. 13. The pretext for which he wrote other messages is the following. When Bishop Dionysius learned about what had happened in Pentapolis, and out of pious zeal, as I said above, he wrote a letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the Sabellian heresy: then some of the brethren of that Church, being just, but without asking Dionysius, in order to find out from him why he wrote, went to Rome and accused him before his co-named Dionysius, Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome, having heard about this, wrote together both against those who hold Sabelli’s opinions, and against those who philosophize, what Arius asserted and for which he was expelled from the Church. And he says that the wickedness of both Sabelli and those who claim that the Word is equal, although opposite to one another. God is a creature and a work, and that He is created. He also wrote to Dionysius (of Alexandria), informing him of what he was accused of. Dionysius soon gave an answer to this, and inscribed his books: “reproof and justification.” Notice in this the hateful way in which the anti-Christ fighters acted, and how, to their shame, they acted against themselves. since Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, also wrote against those who claim that the Son of God is a creature and a work: this shows that not now for the first time, but from ancient times the heresy of the Arians who fought against Christ was anathematized by everyone. Then, since Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, is justified in the reasoning of the epistle that he wrote; then it turns out that he did not think as they say, and did not have Aryan malice at all. 14. To completely condemn the Arians and to prove that they are slandering, it is enough that Dionysius is justified in what the Arians divulge about him. For he wrote the answer not as stubborn in his own way, but as justifying himself, as he was suspected of. And the one who makes excuses - what is he accused of, what else does he do but destroy all the guilt suspected in him, and at the same time expose the slanderers of the Arians? But so that they may be even more ashamed of what Dionysius wrote in his own defense, I will present to you his own expressions. From them you will learn that the Arians are wise, but Dionysius is alien to their evil faith. Firstly, he inscribed his message: “conviction and justification.” What does it mean? - Is it not that he denounces those who lied and is justified in what he wrote, showing that he did not write in the sense that Arius intended, but that, having remembered what was said about the Lord according to His humanity, he does not also know that He is the Word and Wisdom inseparable from the Father? Then, he complains about his accusers - that his expressions are not conveyed completely, but in a truncated form, and as if not with a good, but with an evil conscience, they say what they want, and likens them to slandering the messages of the blessed Apostle. And such a reproach completely frees him from bad suspicion. For if he considers those who accused Paul to be one with those who accused him; this proves nothing else, but the only thing is that he wrote like this, adhering to Pavlov’s way of thinking. And truly, responding to every word of the accusers, he gives the correct meaning to everything that they put forward, and just as he deposed Sabellius with his first letter, so with his last he proves his sincere pious faith. So, since they say that Dionysius thinks that God was not always the Father, that there was not always a Son, but on the contrary, God was without the Word, and the Son himself did not exist until He received being, and there was no time that He did not exist, because He is not eternal, but received being later; then look how he responds to this. Most of his speeches - where he either enters into the study of his subject, or draws conclusions, or denounces, offering questions, or complains about the accusers - leaving, so as not to continue the speech, I bring one thing that necessarily goes to the accusation. So, justifying himself in this, in the first book, inscribed “reproof and justification,” by the way, he writes in the following expressions: 15. “There never was a time when God was not the Father.” And subsequently he says: “it is known that there is always Christ as Word, Wisdom and Power; because God, not as if He had not begotten them before, gave birth to them later, but this is said because the Son does not come into being from Himself, but from the Father.” And soon afterwards he also speaks about the Son: “But, like the radiance of eternal Light, of course He himself is eternal. since there is always light, it is clear that there is always radiance; for in this very thing: to emit a radiance, it is implied that there is light. And the light cannot be non-luminous. Let's return again to similarities. If there is a sun, then there is a ray, there is a day. If there is nothing of the kind, then it is difficult to say that there is also a sun. Therefore, if the sun were eternal, then the day would not cease. But now this is no longer the case: with the appearance of the sun the day begins, and with the cessation of its light it ends. Eternal God is light, which never began and never ceases. Consequently, before Him and with Him is an eternal radiance, beginningless, always abiding and manifesting Him; and this is Wisdom, which says: “When I rejoiced in it, rejoice in His presence every day” (Proverbs 8:30). And a little later she adds, speaking about Him: “So there is an eternal Son of the eternal Father and Light from Light. Since there is a parent, there is also a child. And if there were no child, then why and whose parent can he be? But there is One and the Other, and both always.” Then he adds again: “So, since God is light, then Christ is radiance, for it is said: “Spirit [is] God” (John 4:24)); then, accordingly, Christ is also called a “couple”; for it is said: “the pair are the powers of God” (Wis. 7:25). co-essential with the Father and full of the Existing One, and He Himself is the Existing One from the Father.” 16. If this were said mutually, there would be a need for an interpreter. And since I wrote about the same thing clearly and repeatedly; then let Arius gnash his teeth, seeing that Dionysius has overthrown his heresy, and hearing how he, which Arius would not like, says: God has always been the Father, and the Son is not just eternal; but since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal and co-essential with Him, as radiance is with light. And those who, although they suspected only Dionysius, as if he was philosophizing in the Arian way, let them leave such a bad opinion of him. For what kind of communication do they have when Arius says: the Son was not until He was born, and it was when He was not; and Dionysius teaches: God is eternal light, never beginning and never ceasing; therefore, before Him and with Him is a beginningless radiance, always abiding and manifesting Him? And to another suspicion of those who claim that Dionysius, naming the Father, does not name the Son, and, naming the Son again, does not name the Father, but distinguishes, distances and separates the Son from the Father, Dionysius responds and shames them, saying in the second book: 17. “Of the names I have spoken, each is not separate or separate from the one associated with it. I said: “Father,” and before I added: “Son,” I already meant Him in the Father; I added: “Son,” and even if I didn’t give him the word: “Father”; then, without a doubt, the Father is implied in the Son; I added: “The Holy Spirit,” but added together where it comes from and through whom. But they do not know that the Father, as Father, is not alienated from the Son, because this name expresses the beginning of unity; and the Son is not separated from the Father, because the name: “Father” indicates communication; and in Their hands there is a Spirit, Which cannot be deprived of either the Sender or the Bearer. Why should I, who use these names, think that They are separate and completely separated from each other? And a little later he adds: “Thus, we extend the indivisible Unity into the Trinity, and we again reduce the indivisible Trinity into the Unity.” 18. Then, since he was accused of allegedly saying that the Son is one of the created and not consubstantial with the Father, again in the first book he himself denounces such, saying: “However, having said that we must understand something created and something produced, I casually presented examples of such things as the weakest, when I said that a plant is not the same with a worker, and a boat with a shipbuilder; then, he settled on things that were more decent and related; He especially spread about what is most true, inventing many different proofs, which he communicated to you in another letter, where he showed that the accusation that is brought against me is false, as if I do not recognize that Christ is consubstantial with God. Although I say that I did not find or read this name anywhere in the Holy Scriptures; however, my subsequent arguments, which they kept silent about, do not disagree with this thought. For I presented as an example human birth, obviously, as homogeneous, only, without a doubt, noticing that parents are different from children, because they themselves are not children, or it is necessary to be neither parents nor children. Due to circumstances, I cannot deliver the letter itself, as I said before. And if I could, I would send you the most used sayings at that time, or better yet, a list of the entire message, which I will do as soon as I have the opportunity. I know and remember that I have presented many similarities of related things; I said that a plant that sprang up from a seed or from a root is different from that from which it grew, although, without a doubt, it remained homogeneous with it; and the river flowing from the source receives a different form and a different name, because neither the source is called a river, nor the river a source, but both exist, and the source is, as it were, the father, and the river is water from the source. But they pretend not to see that this and the like are written, and pretend to be blind. They intend from afar to throw at me, like stones, incoherent statements, not knowing that, when reasoning about little-known objects that still need to be made accessible to knowledge, often not only dissimilar, but even opposite, signs serve to depict what is being sought.” In the third book, Dionysius says: “life was born from life, just as a river flowed from a source, and a brilliant light was kindled from an unquenchable light.” 19. Who, hearing this, does not recognize as crazy those who suspect Dionysius that he is philosophizing in the Arian way? For, in these books, Dionysius clearly tramples the entire Aryan heresy with the most true reasoning. Positions: was not until born; and it was when He was not - turns into nothing with one word: “radiance”, and also - saying that His Father was never unborn. The expression “from the non-bearing” also turns them into nothing, when it says that the Word is like a river from a source, a branch from a root, a child from a parent, light from light, life from life. And just as they excommunicate and separate the Word from God, so Dionysius rejects this, saying that the indivisible and undiminished Trinity is reduced to Unity. Their position, that the Son is alien to the Father’s essence, is completely trampled upon, saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Therefore, others will marvel at the shamelessness of the wicked: why, when Dionysius, whom they call like-minded with them, says that the Son is consubstantial, they, like mosquitoes, buzz everywhere, as if the Council wrongly wrote: “consubstantial”? If Dionysius is their friend, then let them not deny what their like-minded person said. And if they think that what was said is wrong; then why is it publicized about Dionysius, who asserts this, as if he thinks the same as them? The most important thing is that Dionysius, as it turns out, does not say this in passing: but, having written other epistles before, he denounces those who accused him of lies - as if he does not call the Son consubstantial with the Father, and those who think that he calls the Word created, he refutes that this is not his thought, as they believe, but if he used these expressions, he used them with the intention of showing only that it was not the Father, but the Son who put on the body that received being, both created and created; which is why it is said of the Son that He received being, was created, and was created. 20. since Dionysius actually used such expressions before; then, although he is far from any unanimity with the Arians, nevertheless, he asks those who listen to “conscience... good things” (1 Pet. 3:16), presenting the difficulty, or perhaps the immensity of the subject of research, - he asks to judge not the expressions, but the understanding of the writer, and especially when very much testifies to his way of thinking. At least, he himself said: “in passing I pointed out examples of such things as the weakest, namely: the plant and the farmer; stopped at things that are more related, and especially expanded on what is most true.” And whoever asserts this shows that it is more consistent with the truth to call the Son eternal and existing from the Father, rather than created. For the last expression signifies the physical nature of the Lord, and the first signifies the eternity of His Divinity. And by this Dionysius confirms that not simply, but prudently and with true arguments, he denounced those who accused him of not calling the Son consubstantial with the Father; precisely he says: “although I did not find this saying in the Scriptures, but, forming a concept from the Scriptures themselves, I learned that He, as the Son and Word, cannot be alien to the Father’s essence.” To prove that he does not think that the Son is a creature and a work (for this was divulged about him), he says this in the second book: “If any of the slanderers, when I called God the Creator and Maker of everything, think that I am saying this about Christ; then let him hear that before I also called God Father, and in this naming the Son is also included. For, having called the Father the Creator, I added: and the Father is not that of which the Creator is, if the one who gave birth is actually called the Father. The vastness of this name: Father - we will show later. The Father is not the Creator, unless you call an artist who produces something with his own hands a creator. For among the Hellenes even the sages are called the creators of their own works. There is, as the Apostle said, “the creator of the law” (James 4:11, Rom.2:13); there are creators of internal virtues or vices, as the Lord said: “I wait for him to do justice, but create lawlessness” (Is. 5:7). 21. He who truly hears this must remember God’s word, which says: “When the wicked turns, he disappears” (Prov. 12:7). For, behold, the wicked disappear daily, turning everywhere, and without having any pretext for this in the words of Dionysius; because he clearly teaches that the Son is not a work and not a creature, but he accuses and admonishes those who slander him as having called God the Creator that they did not notice how Dionysius had previously called God Father, in which name the Son is also included. And by saying this, he shows that the Son is not among the works, and that God is not the Creator, but the Father of His own Word. And since some, foolishly, blamed him for calling God the Creator of Christ; then, justifying himself in various ways, he says that even in this case his word is beyond reproach. For he admits that “he called Him Creator because of the flesh actually created, which the Word took upon Himself. And if anyone suspects that this is said about the Word, then it is appropriate for them to listen without attachment, as if I do not consider the Word to be a work, and I call God not the Creator, but His Father. And if somewhere, speaking about the Son, I say by chance that God is the Creator; then in this case you can justify yourself; because among the Hellenes the sages call themselves the creators of their works, while they are their fathers. And the Divine Scripture calls us creators of heart movements, calling us creators of law, and judgment, and truth.” And thus Dionysius proved in all respects that the Son is not a creature or a work, and he himself is alien to Arian evil. 22. Let no Arian suspect him that he says in Arian that “the Son is co-essential with the Father in such a way that although the names are connected with each other, what they signify are very far from each other, and although the Son is not always co-essential with the Father, yet, as soon as the Son became, so quickly God was called the Father; after that, the Son is already co-essential with Him, as is the case with people.” But let him bring it to his mind and remember what was said before, and then he will see the right Dionysian faith. For he says: “there was no time when God was not the Father”; and again: “God is eternal light, never beginning and never ceasing; therefore, before Him and with Him is an eternal radiance, beginningless, always abiding and manifesting Him.” Therefore, no one should suspect him of anything like that at all. And the examples of the source and the river, the root and the branch, the spirit and the vapor, shame those who oppose Christ, who divulge the contrary about him. 23. since Arius added this saying, as if extracted from pus, to all his other slander, and adds that “this Word is not the Father’s own Word, but there is another word in God; The Lord is alien to the Father’s essence, and by imagination (κατ’ ἐ π ί νοιαν) is only called the Word, and not by nature; and it is not the true Son of God, but as a creature he is called Son by adoption”; and saying this, he boasts before the ignorant, as if in this he has Dionysius as his like-minded person: then look at what the Dionysian faith is in this regard, and how Dionysius fights against such Aryan malice. For in the first book he writes: “It was said before that God is the source of all good things; the river flowing out of Him is inscribed: Son; because the word is an outpouring of the mind, and, humanly speaking, flows out from the heart through the lips. And a thought, expelled with the help of the tongue, becomes another word, different from the word in the heart. For one thing, having sent another from itself, remains the same as it was; and the other, having been sent, flies out and rushes everywhere; and thus each of them - and one abides in the other, and one is different from the other; and two are words, but both are one. So, according to what has been said, the Father and the Son are one, and one exists in the other.” In the fourth book he says this: “Our thought spits out a word, according to what was said by the Prophet: “My heart will spit out a good word” (Ps. 44:2). Both thought and word are different from each other, and occupy their own and separate place from the rest; and the thought abides and moves in the heart, and the word is on the tongue and in the mouth; however, they are inseparable, and are not deprived of each other for a single minute. Neither a thought exists without a word, nor a word without a thought; but thought creates the word, appearing in it, and the word reveals thought, having received being in it. And thought is, as it were, a hidden word within; and the word is an erupting thought. The thought comes into the word, and the word contains the thought in the minds of the listeners; and thus thought through the word is installed in the souls of those who listen, entering along with the word. And thought, being of itself, is, as it were, the father of the word, and the word is, as it were, the son of thought; It is not possible before thought, and did not come from somewhere outside together with thought, but arose from it. So the Father, the highest and all-encompassing Thought, has the Son, the Word, His first interpreter and messenger.” 24. Either Arius never heard this, or, when he heard it, he did not understand it out of ignorance. And if he had understood, he would not have lied so much to the Bishop. But, without a doubt, he, like us, was slandered out of hatred of the truth. As a fighter against Christ, he will not hesitate to persecute those who are wise in Christ; about which the Lord himself predicted: “If you cast out Me, you will also be cast out” (John 15:20). Or, if the patrons of wickedness think that Dionysius is of the same mind with them, then let them write and confess it; let them write about the vine and the worker, about the boat and the shipbuilder, and let them also confess that he spoke in defense of consubstantiality, and about the fact that the Son is from essence, and about eternity, about the relationship of thought to word, about the source and the river, and about the rest, so that at least from this difference they may know how he said one thing out of sight, and another according to the demand of pious faith, and even saying this, they will reject the image contrary to this thoughts. For what is the Dionysian faith similar to the harmful Aryan opinions? Is it not that Arius speaks of the Word by imagination (κατ’ ἐ π ί νοιαν), and Dionysius calls it true and by nature the Word of God? And one alienates the Word from the Father, and the other teaches that It is its own and inseparable from the Father’s essence, and relates to the Father as a word to a thought, a river to a source. Therefore, if anyone can separate and make word and thought alien to each other, or divide a river and a source, and put a wall between them, or call a river alien to the source and prove that water is alien to it, or dare to separate radiance from light and assert that radiance is from another essence, and not from light: then let him go crazy with Arius; for it will turn out that he does not even have a human mind. And if nature itself recognizes this as inseparable and what is born from this is its own birth: then let no one think according to Ariev, and let no one slander Dionysius; but on the contrary, for this reason one is even more surprised at the clarity of his speech and the correctness of his faith. 25. To certify that against the insane Aryan thought, as if there is another word, which is in God, and another, about which John says: “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), also another wisdom, own in God, and another, about which the Apostle speaks: Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24), - Dionysius also rises up and strikes such evil faith, look again at what he writes about this in the second book: “In the beginning was the Word,” but there was no word that published the Word; because the Word was with God. The Lord is Wisdom; therefore, there was no wisdom that produced Wisdom; “Az beh,” She says, “rejoiced over it” (Proverbs 8:30). Christ is the Truth; and it is said: “Blessed is the God of truth” (2 Ezra 4:40). Here Dionysius deposes and Sabellius and Arius, and proves that both of these heresies are equal in wickedness; because the Father of the Word is not the Word, and what is from the Father is not a creature, but the own birth of His essence; and also, the Word that came out is not the Father; and again, this Word is not one of many, but the only true and sincere Son of the Father, and now existing in the Father and existing eternally and inseparably from Him. Thus, the Lord is Wisdom and Truth, and not second after other wisdom, but the only one, the very One by whom the Father created everything; and through Him He brought into being the manifold essences of created things; through Him He allows Himself to be known to whomever He wants; By him the industry of everything is produced and carried out. And Dionysius knew only this one Word of God. This is the Dionysian faith. I have not written much, having collected from his epistles, but it may give you a reason to add more, and increase the shame of the Arians because of their slander against the Bishop. For in all his writings and in each one separately, Dionysius denounced their evil intentions and brought their heresy to shame. 26. So, from this it is revealed that his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius was written with a different thought, according to a special view; his justification also proves this. And indeed, when overthrowing the Sabellian madness, this image of speech is convincing, so that those who want to quickly expose the heretics should begin not with indications of the Divinity of the Word, but namely, that the Son is the Word and Wisdom and Power, and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), so that the heretics, having interpreted what was beautifully said, do not turn this into an excuse for their shameless stubbornness when they hear: “I and the Father are one,... and he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 10:30, 14:9); but, as Dionysius did, he must first present what was said about the Savior in human terms, namely, that He thirsted, was tired, that He is a vine, that He prayed and suffered. To the extent that these sayings are derogatory, to the same extent they prove that it was not the Father who became man. For when the Lord is called a vine, there must be a doer, and when He prayed, there must be one who listened to Him, and when He asked, there must be a giver. Such indications most conveniently reveal the madness of the Sabellians; because one is a prayer, and another is a listener, another is a vine, and another is a doer. If any words are used that seem to alienate the Son from the Father; then they are used about Him because of the flesh that He bore on Himself for our sake. For what is created is, by nature, alien to God. Therefore, since the flesh was created, “the Word,” as John 1:14 says, “was flesh”; then, although by nature He is actually the Father’s Word and inseparable from the Father, however, because of the flesh, it is said that the Father is far from Him; because He Himself allows to speak about Him that is characteristic of the flesh, so that it would be clear that the body was His own, and did not belong to anyone else. When such the meaning is given to the words, then Sabellius will most likely be convicted of the fact that it was not the Father who became flesh, but the Father’s Word, who delivered and led us to the Father. Thus, having convicted and convinced, he will teach those already more prepared about the Divinity of the Word, namely, that the Word is Wisdom, and the Son, and power, and radiance, and image. For here again it is necessary to imagine that since there is a Word, there must also be a Father of the Word; since there is Wisdom, there must also be Her Parent; and since there is radiance, there must be light; and thus both the Son and the Father must be one. 27. Knowing this, Dionysius wrote, and with some he silenced Sabellius, and with others he overthrew the Arian heresy. For just as Sabellia denounces what is human in the Savior, so the Arians need to make accusations that point not to humanity, but to the Divinity of the Word; so that they, having reinterpreted what was said about the Lord according to the body, would not think that the Word is the same as we people are, and would no longer remain in their madness. But, if they too are taught about the Divine, they will condemn their own evil, and having more conveniently understood that “the Word became flesh,” they will then begin to distinguish between what is human and what is proper to the Divine. When this is so, and it is proven that Bishop Dionysius in what he wrote is pious; What should the Arians do after this? Who else should you lie to when you are convicted of this? For they, when they have fallen from the “foundation of the Apostles” (Eph. 2:20) and have an easily shaken mind, need to look for support, and since they do not find it, lie to the Fathers. But no one will believe them anymore, although they will intensify their slander; because their heresy is condemned by everyone. Will they really start talking about the devil? because he alone is in agreement with them, or rather, he instills heresy in them. But who already calls Christians, and not rather devilish, those whose leader is the devil, so that they can be called not only Christ-fighters, but even devilish? Unless they change and renounce their imagined wickedness, they come to know the truth; for it will benefit them too, and it is fitting for us to wish this for all those who are in error. You might be interested in: