Dionysius finally refuted the Chiliastic doctrine, against which Origen had dealt so heavy blows. See Millennium. *^An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, in a work called iXeyx'^C ' AXXfjy opurrCiv, insisted particu- larly on the literal interpretation of the Apocalypse, and the description of the Millennium therein contained. Owing, no doubt, to the persecution by Decius, this view was extensively adopted by the oppressed Christians, to whom it furnished strong motives of endurance. But this having ceased, Dionysius succeeded^ by pei^ Bonal argument and his treatise inpi titayysXiCJVj in expelling C^iliasm from the Eastern Church" (Giese- ler, Church History, i, 62).
In refutation of the Sabellians, Dionysius wrote a letter to Ammonius and Enphanor (see the fragments in Athanasius, de Senient, Dionyii*) which seems to fix upon him the Origenistic doctrine of the subordination of the Son to the Father. ** The Sabellians, though they denied the hypostasis, retained the idea of the dfioovoiov; this led Dionysius to describe the Logos as foreign to the Father in his essence, as his ^roii^/ia, to speak of liis having a beginning, and to make use of striking comparisons to express his subordination. As the Western Church had already developed with great distinctness the idea of unity of essence, Diony- sius, bishop of Rome, took offence at these expressions as derogatory to the divine nature. Dionysius of Al- exandria defended himself against these imputations in an apologetical letter (J\iyxoQ Kai dreoKoyia, of which fragments are preserved ; see Gieseler, Ch. Hitt, vol. i, § 62). His moderation stayed the controversy : he blamed his accusers for having laid too much stress on comparisons, since in heavenly subjects it was not possible to use comparisons that were perfectly ad- equate. Uoulv was used to express the bringing forth of beings of the same kind. He also acknowl- edged the sameness of nature, only he scrupled to use the term dfioovfftov, as he did not find it in Holy Writ He had called the Son ycwi^roCt not in order to ex- press an origination in time, but the derivation of his being from the Father — ^his eternity as founded in that of the Father. He marked the unity of essence thus : an apyii fr^m which everything else is derived, and with which the Logos ia inseparably combined"
(Keander, Bittory of Dogmas, Ryland^s tniBL,i: ** The Arians even asserted (see Atfaanasiu, C^, 258) that Dionysius taught like tbemsehres: Ok ^v 6 0<dc iraTTipf oifK iii ^ 6 vioc <iAX' o ^cwij XwpJC Tov \oyov' airrb^ Si 6 lAoQ ovk ^ rfhffm^^ tiXA' ^ iror£ on ohK ^, w ydtp iiStos hrv, & ^orepov Imyiyoviv (comp., however, the ez{rBia quoted by Athanasius, p. 264, which go to pn«c> contrary). But the bishop of Rome insisted tlie W nysius should adopt the phrase ofMovcia, tovliaa latter at last consented, though he did net tiak3£ it was founded either upon the language of Seti^ or upon the terminology till then cmmt a ik Church. Orthodox theologians of later tina ;t; Athanasius), endeavoring to do more jostioe \» ^' sius of Alexandria, maintained that he had aaltk aforesaid ofifen^ve illustrations Kar oiKovopa^mi that they might be easily explained from the itai^ took against Sabellianism (Athanaahis, p. 2tf m}.; k on the other side, Loffler, Kleime Sckrifim, i, lUit quoted by Heinichen on Euteb, i, 806)'* (Hije^H:] tiutory ofDoctrmet, § 87). Domer holds tiist lm\ sius had really gone too fiir, and was bound to nocj but yet excuses him on the gnrand that ^he «s ^ dowed with but a small measure of sdeolific icn^ ness, and hence did not fully foresee the cenaeqagH of the principles he laid down. His tendeecr U very different fixnn that of Anus" (Domec^ Pm 'j Christ, Edinb. transl. div. i, voL ii, p. 179). M^ the Defendo Fid. Nictm., defends Dionyslii m^ the charge of Arianism in various passtge^ «e i which we give, as follows : " Of the beads of &(td which his adversaries objected against him befccc D»4 nysius Romanus, the following was one : *God wuc^ always a Father, the Son was not always, hot G«dv3( some time without a Logos. The Son himself vu i^ before he was bom, or made, but there «» i tis) when he was not For he was not etemsl, M U made afterwards.* Athanasius expressly m& t:d Dionysius defended himself from these aoaao^ Now* it appears 6rom this accusation that the pR?*- tion, there was a time when the Son was not, vc^ the Catholics held to be heterodox and absodii^ times of Dionysius. But how does Dtonywii ^^ himself? By owning the charge f Ka H€ 7; fbsses that he did from his heart acknowledge, al- ways had acknowledged, the co-eternity of the S& For in the first book of his refritatloii and spokgr. ^ sajrs, * There was not a time when God wai aots f-^ ther.* And some time after he writes thus cooeev^ the Son of God: 'Since he is tiie e£Fa]genee efti« eternal light, he himself is altogether etenal: t since the light is always, the effulgence, k is »:> fest, must also be always.' Again : * God is la tf^ nal light, without beginning or end; tbereftRB eternal effulgence is projected by him, co-exiitB v^ him without beginning, and always boni.' Aa&t^' 'The Son alone is always coexistent with the Ft^ and is filled with the existent Being, and b )as^ existent Arom the Father.' There are plscee pp^^ to these in the epistle to Dionysius, which U^^^ tant, to Paulus Samosatenus, and in lus saenr & PanVs questions set after the efnatle. Ib the q^ he writes thus of Christ : * There is one Cluist. vix» in the Father, the coetemal Word.' In his tBS^^ he thus introduces Christ speaking from tbs pnf^' Jeremy : ' I who always am the Christ soVIsttef f- sonally, equal to the Father, in that I dHfor v^ tnm him in substance, coetemal also with tbe .^la^ ty Sfurit.' Here he confesses the enliie, CKvd e- eternal trinity of persons. The sanw Dionjsiiis M»^ Paul because he would not call Christ the eo^tcs^ character of God the Father's person. And a ^ same place he thus declares the eternity of tke S* 'As then we perceive, when one takes fhrni ooeeff material fires, and neither affects nor divides Hie* kindling one light tnm another, but tiie fire Kass>'