On the Opinion
of Dionysius.
————————————
of Athanasius
concerning Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, shewing that he too was
against the Arian heresy, like the Synod of Nicæa, and that the
Arians in vain libel him in claiming him as on their side.
1. The Arian appeal to Dionysius a slander against him.
You have been tardy in informing me of the
present argument between yourself and the enemies of Christ; for even
before your courtesy wrote to me, I had made diligent enquiry, and
learnt about the matter, of which I heard with pleasure. I approved of
the right opinion entertained by your piety concerning our blessed
fathers, while on the present occasion I once more recognise the
unreasonableness of the Arian madmen. For whereas their heresy has no
ground in reason, nor express proof from holy writ, they were always
resorting to shameless subterfuges and plausible fallacies. But they
have now also ventured to slander the fathers: and this is not
inconsistent, but fully of a piece with their perversity. For what
marvel is it if men who have presumed to ‘take counsel against
the Lord and against His Christ,’ are also vilifying the blessed
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as a partisan and accomplice of their
own? For if they are pleased to extol a man, for the support of their
own heresy, even if they call him blessed, they cast upon him no slight
affront, but a great one indeed; just like robbers or men of evil life
who, when branded for their own practices, claim sober persons as being
of their number, and thus defame their sober character.
2. The Arian position inconsistent with Holy Scripture.
If then they have confidence in their opinions
and statements, let them broach their heresy nakedly, and shew from it
if they think they have any religious argument whether from Scripture, or from human reason, in their defence. But if they have nothing of the kind, let them hold their peace. For they will find nothing from any quarter except the greater condemnation of themselves. Firstly from the Scriptures, in that John says, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ whereas they say, ‘he was not before he was begotten:’ while David sings, in the character of the Father, ‘my heart uttered a good Word’ (Ps. xlv. 1, LXX), whom they allege to be in thought only, and originated from nothing. Further, whereas John once more says in the Gospel (i. 3), ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made,’ while Paul writes, ‘there is one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things’ (1 Cor. viii. 6), and elsewhere, ‘all things were created in Him’ (Col. i. 16), how will they have the boldness (or rather how will they escape disgrace) to oppose the sayings of the saints, by saying that the artificer of all things is a creature, and that He is a created thing in whom all things created have come into being and subsist? Nor, secondly, is any religious argument from human reason left them in their defence. For what man, Greek or barbarian, presumes to call one, whom he confesses to be God, a created thing, or to say that he was not before he was made? or what man, when he has heard Him whom he believes to be God alone say, ‘This is My beloved Son’ (Mat. iii. 17), and ‘my heart uttered a good Word,’ will venture even to say that the Word out of the heart of God has come to being out of nothing? or that the Son is a created thing and not the very offspring of Him that speaks? or again, who that hears Him whom he believes to be Lord and Saviour say, ‘I am in the Father and the Father in Me,’ and ‘I and the Father are one’ (John xiv 10; x. 30), will presume to put asunder what He has made one and maintained indivisible?
3. The Arians appeal to Dionysius as the Jews did to Abraham: but with equally little reason.