



Produced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net






                  TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
                                SERIES I
                              GREEK TEXTS

                            ST. DIONYSIUS OF
                               ALEXANDRIA

                        TRANSLATION OF CHRISTIAN
                          LITERATURE. SERIES I
                              GREEK TEXTS




                             ST. DIONYSIUS
                             OF ALEXANDRIA
                         LETTERS AND TREATISES


                     _By_ CHARLES LETT FELTOE, D.D.

                         SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
                      CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. London
                    The Macmillan Company. New York




                                PREFACE


Not long after my edition of this Father's writings appeared in the
_Cambridge Patristic Texts_ (1904), I was invited to translate the
Letters and some of the other more certainly genuine fragments that
remain into English for the present series; but it is not until now that
I have been able to accomplish the task I then undertook. Since then,
though chiefly occupied in other researches, I have naturally acquired a
more extensive and accurate knowledge of St. Dionysius and his times,
some of the results of which will be found in this volume. Nevertheless,
I was bound to incorporate a considerable amount of the information and
conclusions arrived at in the former work, and wish to express my
acknowledgments to the Syndics of the University Press for leave to do
so, as well as to those again whose names I mentioned as having assisted
me before.

In the present book Dr. A. J. Mason was kind enough to advise me over the
choice of extracts from the two treatises, _On Nature_ and _Refutation
and Defence_, and on one or two minor points, while a friend and
neighbour (the Rev. L. Patterson) read through the whole of the MS.
before it went to the printer and gave me the benefit of a fresh mind
upon a number of small details of style and fact, for which I sincerely
thank him.

                                                           C. L. Feltoe.

  _Ripple by Dover_
    _March 1918._




                                    CONTENTS


                                                                     PAGE
  PREFACE                                                               V
  INTRODUCTION                                                          9
  LETTERS                                                              35
  TO BASILIDES                                                         76
  "ON THE PROMISES"                                                    82
  "ON NATURE"                                                          91
  "REFUTATION AND DEFENCE"                                            101
  ADDITIONAL NOTE                                                     108
  INDEX                                                               109




                              INTRODUCTION


1. None of the many influential occupants of the see of Alexandria and of
the many distinguished heads of the Catechetical School in that city seem
to have been held in higher respect by the ancients than Dionysius. By
common consent he is styled "the Great," while Athanasius, one of his
most famous-successors as Bishop, calls him "Teacher of the Church
universal," and Basil (of Caesarea) refers to him as "a person of
canonical authority" ({kanonikos}). He took a prominent and important
part in all the leading movements and controversies of the day, and his
opinions always carried great weight, especially in Eastern Christendom.
His writings are freely referred to and quoted, not only by Eusebius the
historian,[1] but also by Athanasius, Basil and John of Damascus amongst
others. And what we gather of his personal story from his letters and
various fragments embodied in the works of others--and very little, if
anything else, for certain has come down to us--undoubtedly leaves the
impression that the verdict of the ancient world is correct.


                      His Family and Earlier Life

2. The references to his family and early years are extremely scanty and
vague. In the _Chronicon Orientale_, p. 94, he is stated to have been a
_Sabaita_ and sprung from "the chiefs and nobles of that race": and
several writers speak as if he had been a rhetorician before his
conversion (as Cyprian of Carthage had been). The exact meaning of the
term "Sabaita" above is doubtful. Strictly used, it should mean a member
of the Sabaite convent near Jerusalem, and the _Chronicon_ may be
claiming Dionysius as that, though, of course, without any ground for the
claim. If it is equivalent, however, to "Sabaean" here, it implies an Arab
descent for him, which is hardly probable, as he seems always to consider
himself connected by education and residence, if not by birth, with the
city-folk of Alexandria, whom he distinguishes from the Coptic
inhabitants of Egypt ({Aigyptioi}); so that it would be rather surprising
to find that his family came from the remoter parts of Arabia, where the
Sabaeans dwelt. The other tradition of his having been a rhetorician may
be due to some confusion between our Dionysius and a much later
Alexandrian writer of the same name, who edited the works of the
Areopagite with notes and wrote other treatises. On the other hand,
Dionysius's literary style is such that it might very well have been
formed by the study and practice of rhetoric, while he has been thought
himself to corroborate the statement of the _Chronicon Orientale_, as to
the high position of his family, in his reply to Germanus (p. 49), where
he refers to the "losses of dignities" which he has suffered for the
Faith.

3. He was probably a priest, and not less than thirty, when he became
head of the Catechetical School in 231, and in 264 he excused himself
from attendance at the Council of Antioch on the ground of age and
infirmity; and so it is a safe inference that he was born about or before
200, being thus nearly of an age with Cyprian of Carthage, and only ten
or fifteen years younger than Origen, his master.


                             His Conversion

4. The _Chronicon Orientale_ assigns the reading of St. Paul's letters as
the cause of his conversion to Christianity, and proceeds to state how,
after their perusal, he presented himself for baptism to Demetrius, then
Bishop of Alexandria, who admitted him in due course. Whether this was
actually the cause of his conversion or not, we know from what he has
himself told us in his letter to Philemon (p. 56), that both before and
after baptism he was a diligent student of all that was written for and
against Christianity.


                         Was He Married or Not?

5. Whether, in accordance with the common practice of the Eastern Church
at that time, Dionysius was married or not, is a moot point. He addressed
his treatise {peri Physeos} to one Timotheus {ho pais}, and we read of
{hoi paides} (of whom Timotheus was one) as accompanying him in his
flight (p. 44). One would naturally infer from this that he was then a
widower (his wife not being mentioned), and that these were his sons; but
they may have been his pupils, on the supposition that he was still
Catechete as well as Bishop, or, which is less likely, his servants.[2]


               He becomes Head of the Catechetical School

6. When Demetrius died in 231, Heraclas, who for some years had been
associated with Origen at the Catechetical School and had just been left
in charge of it by him on his final retirement that year from Alexandria,
was elected Bishop, while Dionysius, who had himself been a pupil of
Origen there, was appointed to fill the vacancy he created. It is
possible that the treatise {peri Physeos}, extracts from which are given
below (on pp. 91 ff.), was composed while Dionysius held this important
post, and that a commentary on _Ecclesiastes_, some genuine fragments of
which probably remain, belongs to the same period. The former of these is
much the more valuable work, for in it for the first time a Christian
undertook systematically to refute the atomistic theories of Epicurus and
his followers.


                    He becomes Bishop of Alexandria

7. Sixteen years later, in 247, upon the death of Heraclas, Dionysius
succeeded to the bishopric as the fourteenth occupant of the see,
possibly, as has already been suggested, without at once resigning his
post at the School. Philip the Arabian (of Bostra) had then been Emperor
for three years, a position he was destined to retain for two years
longer. Like Alexander Severus before him, he was known to favour the
Christians, and Dionysius himself bears witness to the comparative
mildness of his rule (p. 37). For a short time, therefore, the new Bishop
and his flock were left in peace, though even before the death of Philip
signs of the coming storm appeared. In the last year of his reign
Dionysius tells Fabius, Bishop of Antioch (p. 35), that "the prophet and
poet of evil to this city, whoever he was," stirred up the populace
against the Christians in Alexandria, and several persons were cruelly
martyred. This reign of terror lasted some time, but was interrupted in
the autumn of 249 by the revolution which caused the deposition and death
of Philip, and which set Decius on the throne in his stead. The respite
was only too brief, for by the beginning of the new year the edict which
Decius had issued was being actively carried into effect. The Bishops
were at first singled out for attack. Origen, though not one of them, was
included among the earlier victims--on account, no doubt, of his
prominence as a scholar and a teacher--being imprisoned at Tyre and
cruelly tortured, though not actually martyred.


                    Under the Persecution of Decius

8. Decius's reversal of his predecessor's policy towards the Christians
was probably due to reasons of state and expediency rather than, as
Eusebius implies, to mere spite and hatred of Philip and all his ways.
Anyhow, the severity of the Decian persecution is undoubted, and it fell
with great force upon the Church at Alexandria. The Prefect of Egypt,
Sabinus, lost no time in attacking Dionysius and his followers. Many
endured tortures or death, or both. Dionysius himself, after waiting four
days, fled and was sought for by a secret service messenger
(_frumentarius_, see note on p. 43) sent by Sabinus. A brief search was
sufficient to recover him, and he was carried off with four of his
companions to Taposiris. But through a strange interposition of
Providence (related on pp. 44 f.) he was rescued by a wedding party of
rustic revellers and removed to a place of safety in the Libyan Desert,
where he appears to have been left unmolested, with two of his four
companions (see pp. 64 ff.), till the persecution ceased and he was able
to return to the city. In after days Dionysius's action in fleeing on
this occasion was violently attacked by a certain Bishop Germanus, who
was perhaps one of his suffragans. Germanus boasted of his own much
braver conduct under persecution. Dionysius in his reply (see especially
pp. 43 and 45) maintains that it was not of his own will nor yet without
divine intimation that he had fled, and that he had suffered far more
than his critic for the Faith. Decius's rule was brought to a calamitous
end in 251, but Gallus, who succeeded him, continued his treatment of the
Christians for another two years, when he, too, suffered an untimely
fate.

9. For the next four years the Church of Alexandria enjoyed comparative
rest and peace. In 253 AEmilianus[3] the Governor of Pannonia and Moesia,
who had in that spring wrested the imperial power from Gallus, was in his
turn, after four months' rule, defeated by Valerian and his son
Gallienus, and slain by the soldiery. The new Emperors (father and son)
left the Christians alone during the first four years of their reign--a
somewhat surprising fact, when it is considered that Valerian had been
specially chosen to fill the office of "Censor," which Decius had
revived. It may in some measure have been due to what Archbishop Benson
(_Cyprian_, p. 457) calls his "languid temperament" as well as to his
son's connexions with the Christians through his wife Cornelia Salonina.


                   His Action about Heretical Baptism

10. During this interval of peace, but chiefly towards the end of it,
Dionysius took part in that controversy about heretical baptism to which
the letters on pp. 51 ff. belong. Up till now various parts of
Christendom had followed various customs on this matter without much
disputing. In Asia Minor and in Africa baptism by heretics was not
recognized, while in the West baptism with water in the name of the
Trinity or of Christ was held valid by whomsoever performed. Before the
middle of the third century, however, the difference of practice
gradually became more and more a matter of controversy. In or about A.D.
230 two synods were held one after the other at Iconium and at Synnada
(see p. 58, _n._), which confirmed the opinion that heretical baptism was
invalid: and some twenty-five years later on Cyprian of Carthage convened
several synods in North Africa, which arrived at the same conclusion.
Thereupon a violent quarrel arose between Cyprian and Stephen the Bishop
of Rome; this became, perhaps, all the keener, because of the former
alliance and co-operation between Cyprian and Stephen's predecessor,
Cornelius, in combating the Novatianist schism,[4] which had eventually
led also to heresy over the restoration of those who had lapsed under
persecution. Severe language was now used on both sides, and other
leading Churchmen of the day were naturally drawn into the discussion:
among them our Dionysius, who--after the first, at all events--with
characteristic sagacity steered a middle course and advised that the
older spirit of toleration should be maintained, the circumstances of
different churches requiring different methods. Fragments of five letters
on this subject have come down to us, all addressed to the Church of Rome
or rather to representative members of that Church, the first of them
probably written in 254 when the Novatianist schism was subsiding (see p.
52), and the others belonging to the year 257 (see pp. 54 ff.).


                   Under the Persecution of Valerian

11. Suddenly, in the summer of that year, the Church was startled by the
issue of an edict which revived the reign of terror and threw her into a
state of persecution which lasted for more than three years. This
unexpected change of treatment is attributed by Dionysius to the
influence of Macrianus, who at one time held the office of _Rationalis_
(Treasurer or Accountant-General) to the Emperor. This man was apparently
a <DW36> in body, but mentally and otherwise a person of considerable
ability and force of character: but he seems to have associated himself
in some way with the soothsayers of Egypt,[5] and to have conceived a
violent hatred against the Christians. Quite early in the proceedings
which were instituted against them at Alexandria in consequence of the
edict, Dionysius, with several of his clergy, was brought before
AEmilianus the Prefect,[6] and after examination--chiefly as to his
loyalty to the Emperors, which his refusal to pay them divine honours
rendered doubtful--was banished first to a place called Cephro (probably
not far from Taposiris, where he had been sent before), and then
somewhere on the high road in the district called Colluthion. Dionysius's
own account of the circumstances which led to and attended this second
exile is given on pp. 46 ff., an account which is valuable, among other
reasons, because it is largely drawn from the official memoranda of the
Prefect's court, and because it shows how both sides did their
ineffectual best to understand each other's position.


                          Restoration of Peace

12. The persecution lasted till the autumn of 260, and was then, on the
disappearance of Valerian, stayed by an edict of Peace issued by his son
Gallienus, who was now left alone upon the throne. The Greek version,
which Eusebius gives us, is apparently not that of the actual edict, but
of the Emperor's letter or rescript which applied it to Egypt. It is
addressed to Dionysius and other bishops, and runs as follows: "I have
ordained that the benefit of my concession be enforced throughout the
world, to the effect that men should withdraw from (_i. e._ not interfere
with) your places of worship. And accordingly ye, too, may use the terms
of my rescript, so that none may interfere with you. And this, which may
with authority be carried out by you, has already been granted by me some
time ago. And accordingly Aurelius Quirinius, who is in charge of the
Exchequer,[7] shall preserve this form now given by me." Instructions
were also issued permitting the Christians to have free access to their
cemeteries--a privilege which was always much prized.


                        His Return to Alexandria

13. It is practically certain that Dionysius returned to Alexandria as
soon as Gallienus's edict came into operation there. But almost
immediately fresh disturbances were felt in the city, followed by one of
those frequent outbreaks of pestilence to which the East was always
liable, and these hindered for a time his work of bringing the brethren
together again. The disturbances are with good reason thought to have
been those connected with the attempt of Macrianus to overturn the power
of Gallienus in Egypt, though that country was so often the scene of
tumults and civil wars for the next twelve years and more that it is
almost impossible to identify any particular disturbances with certainty
during this period.


      The Troubles Connected with his Protest against Sabellianism

14. For another five years Dionysius was spared to administer his charge
and to benefit the Church at large with his prudent counsels. But, though
attacks upon himself never seem to have troubled him very much, he had
still to endure one such attack which probably grieved him more than all
the rest, and the after results of which lingered on till the days of
Athanasius and Basil in the next century. This was in connexion with the
Sabellian controversy, especially that phase of it which had recently
arisen in the Libyan Pentapolis (on the north-west coast of Cyrenaica).
Sabellius was a native of the district, and his heresy consisted in
laying too much stress on the unity of the Godhead and in so hopelessly
confounding the Three Persons in the Trinity as to imply that the Person
of the Father was incarnate in Christ. It is in 257 that we first find
Dionysius, in a letter to Xystus II (see p. 55), calling the attention of
the Bishop of Rome to these views, by which time Sabellius was himself
probably already dead. From what he says there, it appears as if
Dionysius was unaware that these views were not of quite recent origin
and were already rather prevalent in both East and West, whilst his words
seem also to imply that this later phase of Sabellianism endangered the
dignity of the Third Person as well as of the First and Second. In Libya
the heresy gained such a hold upon the Church that it even infected
certain of the Bishops, and the Son of God was no longer preached.
Dionysius, therefore, feeling his responsibility for the churches under
his care, became active in trying to eradicate the evil. Among a number
of letters which he wrote on the subject, there was one (about the year
260) in which he made use of certain expressions and illustrations with
regard to the Son of God, which were seized hold of by some members of
the Church either at Alexandria or in the Pentapolis as heretical. This
letter was apparently one of the later letters of the series, when his
earlier overtures had failed to produce the effect he desired.

15. Dionysius's critics laid a formal complaint against him before his
namesake (Dionysius), who had by now succeeded the martyred Xystus II as
Bishop of Rome; they accused him of having fallen into five errors
himself, while correcting the false views of the Sabellians.

They were as follows, as we gather them from Athan., _de sent. Dion._:--

  (1) Separating the Father and the Son.

  (2) Denying the eternity of the Son.

  (3) Naming the Father without the Son and the Son without the Father.

  (4) Virtually rejecting the term {homoousios} (of one substance) as
  descriptive of the Son.

  (5) Speaking of the Son as a creature of the Father and using
  misleading illustrations of their relation to One Another.

One or two of these illustrations which were objected to will be found in
the extract translated on p. 103, and they are sufficient to give some
idea of the rest. It may, however, be acknowledged that neither Dionysius
himself in his original statements and in his attempts to explain them,
nor Athanasius, who, when Arius afterwards appealed to Dionysius in
support of his opinions, put forward an elaborate defence of him, was
altogether happy or successful.

16. Upon receiving the complaint mentioned, the Bishop of Rome appears to
have convened a synod, which condemned the expressions complained of, and
a letter was addressed by him on the modes of correcting the heresy to
the Church of Alexandria. From motives of delicacy he made no actual
mention of his Alexandrian brother-bishop in this letter, while
criticizing his views, though he wrote to him privately asking for an
explanation. A considerable portion of the public letter has been
preserved for us by Athanasius, but it is not included in this volume,
nor is it necessary to particularize his treatment of the question or to
say more than this, that, though the Roman Bishop wrote quite good Greek
and gives no impression that he felt hampered by it in expressing his
meaning, yet he does naturally exhibit distinct traces of Western modes
of thought as opposed to Eastern, and is not always quite fair in his
representation and interpretation of what Dionysius had said.

Dionysius's answer to his Roman brother was embodied in the treatise
called _Refutation and Defence_ ({Elenchos kai Apologia}), some extracts
from which (as given by Athanasius) will be found on pp. 101 ff.

The following is an indication of Dionysius's line of defence against the
five points raised against him, other matters which arose more
particularly between him and his namesake of Rome being passed over.

(1) As to the charge of separating the Three Persons in the Trinity, he
distinctly denies it: all the language he employs and the very names he
gives imply the opposite: "Father" must involve "Son" and "Son" "Father":
"Holy Spirit" at once suggests His Source and the Channel.

(2) As to the eternity of the Son, he is equally emphatic. God was always
the Father and therefore Christ was always the Son, just as, if the sun
were eternal, the daylight would also be eternal.

(3) The charge of omitting the Son in speaking of the Father and vice
versa is refuted by what is said under (1): the one name involves the
other.

(4) Dionysius's rejection or non-employment of the term {homoousios} is
less easily disposed of. He practically acknowledges that, as it is not a
Scriptural word, he had _not_ used it, but at the same time that the
figures he employed suggested a similar relationship, _e. g._ the figure
of parent and child who are of one family ({homogeneis}) or seed, root
and plant which are of one kind ({homophye}), and again source and
stream, and in another place the word in the heart and the mind springing
forth by the tongue (see p. 106): but for the unsatisfactoriness of this
defence the reader should consult Bethune-Baker, _Early History of
Christian Doctrine_, chap. viii. pp. 113 ff, who points out that
Dionysius had not grasped the Western tradition of one _substantia_
({ousia}) of Godhead existing in three Persons.

(5) But the most serious misunderstanding naturally arose from Dionysius
speaking of the Son as {poiema} (creature), and illustrating the word by
the gardener with his vine and the shipwright with his boat. His defence
is that though he had undoubtedly used such rather unsuitable figures
somewhat casually, he had immediately adduced several others more
suitable and apposite (such as those mentioned under (4) above). And he
complains that not only here, but throughout, his accusers did not take
his utterances as a whole, but slashed his writings about and made what
sense of them they liked, not sincerely, but with evil intent. He tries
further to explain that in his context {poiein} (make) was equivalent to
{gennan} (beget), as of a Father, not a Creator, which he maintains is
legitimate, but the defence is not very convincing all the same.

So far as we can now judge, however, his arguments seem to have satisfied
his critics at the time, and were certainly held in high repute by the
ancient Churches, for they are quoted or referred to not only by
Athanasius, as has been stated, but also by Eusebius, by Basil of Caesarea
(who is, however, much more temperate in his support), and by Jerome and
Rufinus.


                         Dionysius's Last Days

17. It is evident that, in spite of this controversy, his great
reputation in the eyes of the Church was maintained to the end: for when
the Council of Antioch was being summoned to deal with the troubles
connected with the heresies of Paul of Samosata, who held views somewhat
similar to those of Sabellius, Dionysius was specially invited to attend.
As was said above on p. 10, he excused himself from attendance on the
ground of old age and infirmity, but he sent a letter in reply to the
invitation which contained his views on the matter, and these were
unfavourable to the heretic. In 265, before the Council had finished its
sessions, he passed to his well-earned rest.


                          Dionysius as Author

18. From what has already been said, it will be gathered that Dionysius
was a person of remarkable versatility, and at the same time unusually
free