Relevant
books
available at Amazon
 
J.N.D. Kelly
Early Christian Doctrines
----- |
14....Most of what he said, whether in
the form of investigations, or collective inferences, or interrogatory
refutations, or charges against his accusers, I omit because of the length of
his discourses, inserting only what is strictly relevant to the charges against
him. In answer to these, he writes after certain prefatory matter, in the first
book inscribed ‘Refutation and Defence’ in the following terms.
15. Extracts from the ‘Refutation and Defence.’
‘For never was there a time when God was not a father.’ And this he acknowledges
in what follows, ‘that Christ is for ever, being Word and Wisdom and Power. For
it is not to be supposed that God, having at first no such issue, afterwards
begat a Son, but that the Son has His being not of Himself but of the Father.’
And a little way on he adds on the same subject, ‘But being the brightness of
light eternal, certainly He is Himself eternal; for as the light exists always,
it is evident that the brightness must exist always as well. For it is by the
fact of its shining that the existence of light is perceived, and there cannot
be light that does not give light. For let us come back to our examples. If
there is sun, there is sunlight, there is day. If there is none of these things,
it is quite impossible for there to be sun. If then the sun were eternal, the
day also would be unceasing. But in fact, as that is not so, the day begins and
ceases with the sun. But God is light eternal, never beginning nor ceasing. The
brightness then lies before Him eternally, and is with Him without beginning and
ever-begotten, shining in His Presence, being that Wisdom which said, “I was
that wherein he rejoiced, and daily I was glad in his presence at all times”.’
And again after a little he resumes the same subject with the words, ‘The Father
then being eternal, the Son is eternal, being Light of Light: for if there is a
parent there is also a child. But if there were not a child, how and of whom can
there be a parent? But there are both, and that eternally.’ Then again he adds,
‘God then being light, Christ is brightness; and being Spirit, for “God is a
Spirit”,—in like manner Christ is called the breath, for He is the “breath of
the power of God”.’ And again, to quote the second book, he says, ‘But only the
Son, who always is with the Father and is filled of Him that IS, Himself also IS
from the Father.’
16. Contrast of the language of
Dionysius with that of Arius.
Now if the sense of the above statements were doubtful, there would be need of
an interpreter. But since he wrote plainly and repeatedly on the same subject,
let Arius gnash his teeth when he sees his own heresy subverted by Dionysius,
and hears him say what he does not wish to hear: ‘God was always Father, and the
Son is not absolutely eternal, but His eternity flows from the eternity of the
Father, and He coexists with Him as brightness with the light.’ But let these,
who have so much as imagined that Dionysius held with Arius, lay aside such a
slander against him. For what have they in common, when Arius says, ‘The Son was
not before He was begotten, but there was once a time when He was not,’ whereas
Dionysius teaches, ‘Now God is Light eternal, neither beginning, nor ever to
end: accordingly the brightness lies before Him eternally, and coexists with
Him, shining before Him without beginning and ever-begotten.’ For in fact to
meet the suspicion of others who allege that Dionysius in speaking of the Father
does not name the Son, and again in speaking of the Son does not name the
Father, but divides, removes, and separates the Son from the Father, he replies
and puts them to shame in the second book, as follows.
17. Dionysius did not separate the
Persons of the Holy Trinity.
‘Each of the names I have mentioned is inseparable and indivisible from that
next to it. I spoke of the Father, and before referring to the Son I designated
Him too in the Father. I referred to the Son,—and even if I did not also
expressly mention the Father, certainly He was to be understood beforehand in
the Son. I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I further added both
whence and through whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither is the
Father, qua Father, separated from the Son,—for the name carries that
relationship with it,—nor is the Son expatriated from the Father. For the title
Father denotes the common bond. But in their hands is the Spirit, who cannot be
parted either from Him that sent or from Him that conveyed Him: How then can I,
who use these names, imagine that they are sundered and utterly separated from
one another?’ And after a little he goes on, ‘Thus then we extend the Monad
indivisibly into the Triad, and conversely gather together the Triad without
diminution into the Monad.’
18. Dionysius did not hold that the
Son was not of one essence with the Father.
Next he confutes them upon their charge that he called the Son one of the things
originated, and not of one essence with the Father (once more in the first book)
as follows: ‘Only in saying that certain things were perceived to be originated
and created, I gave them as examples cursorily, as being less adequate, saying
that neither was the plant [of one essence] with the husbandman, nor the boat
with its builder. Then I dwelt more upon more apposite and suitable comparisons,
and went at greater length into those nearer the truth, making out various
proofs, which I wrote to you in another letter, by means of which proofs I
shewed also that the charge they allege against me is untrue, namely, that I
denied Christ to be of one essence with God. For even if I argue that I have not
found this word (ὁμοούσιον) nor read it anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, yet my
subsequent reasonings, which they have suppressed, do not discord with its
meaning. For I gave the example of human birth evidently as being homogeneous,
and saying that certainly the parents only differed from their children in not
being themselves the children, else it would follow that there was no such thing
as parents or children. And the letter, as I said before, I am prevented by
circumstances from producing, else I would have sent you the exact words I then
used, or rather a copy of all the letter: which I will do if I have an
opportunity. But I know, and recollect, that I added several similitudes from
kindred relations. For I said that a plant, sprung from a seed or root, was
different from that whence it sprung, and at the same time entirely of one
nature with it: and that a stream flowing from a well receives another form and
name,—for the well is not called a river, nor the river a well,—and that both
existed, and that the well was as it were a father, while the river was water
from the well. But they pretend not to see these and the like written
statements, but to be as it were blind, while they try to pelt me with two
unconnected expressions like stones, from a distance, not knowing that in
matters beyond our knowledge, and which require training to apprehend,
frequently not only foreign, but even contrary examples serve to illustrate the
problem in hand.’ And in the third book he says, ‘Life was begotten of Life, and
flowed as a river from a well, and from Light unquenchable bright Light was
kindled.’
|
