(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 ({homophyê}), 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 {poiêma} (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 Cæsarea
(who is, however, much more temperate in his support), and by Jerome and
Rufinus.