Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius

Advanced Information

Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.

Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York, and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London

Published in 1890 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.

Book VII.

Introduction.

In this seventh book of the Church History, the great bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius, [2160] shall again assist us by his own words; relating the several affairs of his time in the epistles which he has left. I will begin with them.

Footnotes

[2160] On Dionysius, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

Chapter I.--The Wickedness of Decius and Gallus.

When Decius had reigned not quite two years, [2161] he was slain with his children, and Gallus succeeded him. At this time Origen died, being sixty-nine years of age. [2162] Dionysius, writing to Hermammon, [2163] speaks as follows of Gallus: [2164] "Gallus neither recognized the wickedness of Decius, nor considered what had destroyed him; but stumbled on the same stone, though it lay before his eyes. For when his reign was prosperous and affairs were proceeding according to his mind, he attacked the holy men who were interceding with God for his peace and welfare. Therefore with them he persecuted also their prayers in his behalf." So much concerning him.

BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site

Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects

E-mail

Footnotes

[2161] Decius reigned about thirty months, from the summer of 249 until almost the close of the year 251 (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 285). His son Herennius Etruscus was slain with his father in a battle fought against the Goths in Thrace; another son, Hostilianus, was associated in the purple with Decius' successor, Gallus, but died soon afterwards, probably by the plague, which was at that time raging; possibly, as was suspected, by the treachery of Gallus. There has been some controversy as to whether Hostilianus was a son, or only a nephew, or a son-in-law of Decius. Eusebius in speaking of more than one son becomes an independent witness to the former alternative, and there is really little reason to doubt it, for Zosimus' statements are explicit (see Zosimus, I. 25, and cf. Tillemont, ibid. p. 506). Two other sons are mentioned in one inscription but its genuineness is doubtful. Eusebius, however, may be urged as a witness that he had more than two (cf. Tillemont, ibid.). [2162] henos deonta tes zoes hebdomekonta apoplesas zte teleutZ. Upon the date of Origen's birth and upon his life in general, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 2, note 1, and below, p. 391 sq. [2163] Of this Hermammon we know nothing. The words of Eusebius at the close of chap. 22, below, lead us to think that he was probably a bishop of some church in Egypt. Fragments of the epistle addressed to him are preserved in this Chapter and in Chapters 10 and 23, below. It is possible that Dionysius wrote more than one epistle to Hermammon and that the fragments which we have are from different letters. This, however, is not probable, for Eusebius gives no hint that he is quoting from more than one epistle, and, moreover, the three extracts which we have correspond excellently with one another, seeming to be drawn from a single epistle which contained a description of the conduct of successive emperors toward the Christians. The date of the epistle is given at the close of chap. 23; namely, the ninth year of the Emperor Gallienus (i.e. August, 261-August, 262), reckoning from the time of his association with his father Valerian in the purple. [2164] Gallus succeeded Decius toward the close of the year 251 and reigned until the summer of 253 (some with less ground say 254), when he was slain, with his son, by his own soldiers. His persecution of the Christians (under him, for instance, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, was banished, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), seems to have been less the result of a deeply rooted religious conviction and a fixed political principle (such as Decius possessed) than of the terrible plague which had begun during the reign of Decius and was ravaging the empire during the early part of Gallus' reign (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. III. p. 288). He persecuted, therefore, not so much as a matter of principle as because he desired either to appease the populace or to propitiate the Gods, whom he superstitiously believed, as the people did, to be the authors of the terrible scourge.

Chapter II.--The Bishops of Rome in those Times.

Cornelius, [2165] having held the episcopate in the city of Rome about three years, was succeeded by Lucius. [2166] He died in less than eight months, and transmitted his office to Stephen. [2167] Dionysius wrote to him the first of his letters on baptism, [2168] as no small controversy had arisen as to whether those who had turned from any heresy should be purified by baptism. For the ancient custom prevailed in regard to such, that they should receive only the laying on of hands with prayers. [2169]

Footnotes

[2165] On Cornelius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3. [2166] Eusebius makes Cornelius' episcopate a year too long (see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), and hence puts the accession of Julius too late. Jerome puts him in the second year of Gallus (see the same note) and gives the duration of his episcopate as eight months, agreeing with Eusebius in the present passage. The Armenian Chron. puts Lucius in the seventh year of Philip, and assigns only two months to his episcopate. But it is far out of the way, as also in regard to Cornelius. The Liberian catalogue assigns three years and eight months to Lucius' episcopate, putting his death in 255; but Lipsius has shown conclusively that this must be incorrect, and concludes that he held office eight months, from June, 253, to March, 254. He was banished while bishop of Rome, but returned very soon, and died in a short time, probably a natural death. The strife in regard to the lapsed, begun while Cornelius was bishop, continued under him, and he followed the liberal policy of his predecessor. One letter of Cyprian addressed to him is extant (Ep. 57; al. 61). [2167] Lipsius puts the accession of Stephen on the twelfth of May, 254, and his death on the second of August, 257, assigning him an episcopate of three years, two months and twenty-one days. The dates given by the chief authorities vary greatly. The Liberian catalogue gives four years, two months and twenty-one days, which Lipsius corrects simply by reading three instead of four years, for the latter figure is impossible (see chap. 5, note 5). Eusebius, in chap. 5, tells us that Stephen held office two years. Jerome's version of the Chron. says three years, but puts his accession in the second year of Gallus, which is inconsistent with his own statement that Cornelius became bishop in the first year of Gallus. The Armenian Chron. agrees with Eusebius' statement in chap. 5, below, in assigning two years to the episcopate of Stephen, but puts his accession in the seventh year of Philip, which, like his notices of Cornelius and Lucius is far out of the way. The discussion in regard to the lapsed still continued under Stephen. But the chief controversy of the time was in regard to the re-baptism of heretics, which caused a severe rupture between the churches of Rome and Carthage. Stephen held, in accordance with ancient usage and the uniform custom of the Roman church (though under Callistus heretics were re-baptized according to Hippolytus, Phil. IX. 7), that baptism, even by heretics and schismatics, is valid; and that one so baptized is not to be re-baptized upon entering the orthodox church, but is to be received by the imposition of hands. Cyprian, on the other hand, supported by the whole of the Asiatic and African church, maintained the invalidity of such baptism and the necessity of re-baptism. The controversy became very sharp, and seems to have resulted in Stephen's hurling an excommunication against the Asiatic and African churches. Compare the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian (Ep. 75), and that of Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below. Stephen appears to have been a man of very dictatorial and overbearing temper, if our authorities are to be relied upon, and seems to have made overweening claims in regard to Rome's prerogatives; to have been the first in fact to assume that the bishop of Rome had the right of exercising control over the whole Church (see especially the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian; Cyprian's Epistles, No. 74, al. 75). It must be remembered, however, that we know Stephen only through the accounts of his opponents. It had been the practice in the churches of Asia for a long time before Cyprian to re-baptize heretics and schismatics (cf. the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, and the epistle of Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below), and the custom prevailed also in Africa, though it seems to have been a newer thing there. Cyprian, in his epistle to Jubaianus (Ep. 72, al. 73), does not trace it back beyond Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, under whom the practice was sanctioned by a council (186-187 or 215-217 a.d.). Under Cyprian himself the practice was confirmed by a council at Carthage, in 255 a.d. The more liberal view of the Roman church, however, in time prevailed and was confirmed with some limitations by the Council of Arles, in 314. Stephen figures in tradition as a martyr, but there is no reason to think that he was one, for the Church was enjoying comparative peace at the time of his death. Two epistles are extant, addressed to him by Cyprian (Nos. 66 and 71, al. 68 and 72). A number of Cyprian's epistles refer to Stephen. [2168] Six epistles by Dionysius on the subject of baptism are mentioned by Eusebius (see below, chap. 5, note 6). It is clear that Dionysius, so far as Eusebius knew, wrote but one to Stephen on this subject, for he calls the one which he wrote to Xystus the second (in chap. 5). Dionysius' own opinion on the subject of re-baptism is plain enough from Eusebius' words in this Chapter, and also from Dionysius' own words in chap. 5, below. He sided with the entire Eastern and African church in refusing to admit the validity of heretical baptism, and in requiring a convert from the heretics to be "washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven" (see chap. 5, �5). [2169] See note 3.

Chapter III.--Cyprian, and the Bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by Baptism those converted from Heresy.

First of all, Cyprian, pastor of the parish of Carthage, [2170] maintained that they should not be received except they had been purified from their error by baptism. But Stephen considering it unnecessary to add any innovation contrary to the tradition which had been held from the beginning, was very indignant at this. [2171]

Footnotes

[2170] From 247 or 248 to 258, when he suffered martyrdom. [2171] See the previous Chapter, note 3.

Chapter IV.--The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this Subject.

Dionysius, therefore, having communicated with him extensively on this question by letter, [2172] finally showed him that since the persecution had abated, [2173] the churches everywhere had rejected the novelty of Novatus, and were at peace among themselves. He writes as follows:

Footnotes

[2172] dia grammEURton, which might mean "letters," but in the present case must refer apparently to a single letter (the plural, grEURmmata, like the Latin litter�, was very commonly used to denote a single epistle), for in chap. 2 Eusebius says that Dionysius' first epistle on baptism was addressed to Stephen, and in chap. 5 informs us that his second was addressed to Xystus. The epistle mentioned here must be the one referred to in chap. 2 and must have been devoted chiefly to the question of the re-baptism of heretics or schismatics (peri toutou referring evidently to the subject spoken of in the previous Chapter). But Eusebius quite irrelevantly quotes from the epistle a passage not upon the subject in hand, but upon an entirely different one, viz. upon the peace which had been established in the Eastern churches, after the disturbances caused by the schism of Novatian (see Bk. VI. chap. 43 sq.). That the peace spoken of in this epistle cannot mean, as Baronius held, that the Eastern churches had come over to Stephen's opinion in regard to the subject of baptism is clear enough from the fact that Dionysius wrote another epistle to Stephen's successor (see the next Chapter) in which he still defended the practice of re-baptism. In fact, the passage quoted by Eusebius from Dionysius' epistle to Stephen has no reference to the subject of baptism. [2173] The persecution referred to is that of Decius.

Chapter V.--The Peace following the Persecution.

1. "But know now, my brethren, that all the churches throughout the East and beyond, which formerly were divided, have become united. And all the bishops everywhere are of one mind, and rejoice greatly in the peace which has come beyond expectation. Thus Demetrianus in Antioch, [2174] Theoctistus in C�sarea, Mazabanes in �lia, Marinus in Tyre (Alexander having fallen asleep), [2175] Heliodorus in Laodicea (Thelymidres being dead), Helenus in Tarsus, and all the churches of Cilicia, Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia. I have named only the more illustrious bishops, that I may not make my epistle too long and my words too burdensome. 2. And all Syria, and Arabia to which you send help when needed, [2176] and whither you have just written, [2177] Mesopotamia, Pontus, Bithynia, and in short all everywhere are rejoicing and glorifying God for the unanimity and brotherly love." Thus far Dionysius. 3. But Stephen, having filled his office two years, was succeeded by Xystus. [2178] Dionysius wrote him a second epistle on baptism, [2179] in which he shows him at the same time the opinion and judgment of Stephen and the other bishops, and speaks in this manner of Stephen: 4. "He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter. 5. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed [2180] and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things." Further on he says: 6. "I wrote also, at first in few words, recently in many, to our beloved fellow-presbyters, Dionysius [2181] and Philemon, [2182] who formerly had held the same opinion as Stephen, and had written to me on the same matters." So much in regard to the above-mentioned controversy.

Footnotes

[2174] On Demetrianus, Thelymidres, and Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46. On Theoctistus, see ibid. chap. 19, note 27; on Firmilian, ibid. chap. 26, note 3; on Mazabanes, ibid. chap. 39, note 5. [2175] This clause (koimethentos 'AlexEURndrou) is placed by Rufinus, followed by Stroth, Zimmermann, Valesius (in his notes), Closs, and Crus�, immediately after the words "Mazabanes in �lia." But all the mss. followed by all the other editors give the clause in the position which it occupies above in my translation. It is natural, of course, to think of the famous Alexander of Jerusalem as referred to here (Bk. VI. chap. 8, note 6), but it is difficult to see how, if he were referred to, the words could stand in the position which they occupy in the text. It is not impossible, however, to assume simple carelessness on Dionysius' part to explain the peculiar order, and thus hold that Alexander of Jerusalem is here referred to. Nor is it, on the other hand, impossible (though certainly difficult) to suppose that Dionysius is referring to a bishop of Tyre named Alexander, whom we hear of from no other source. [2176] The church of Rome had been from an early date very liberal in assisting the needy in every quarter. See the epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, bishop of Rome, quoted above in Bk. IV. chap. 23. [2177] Dionysius speaks just below (�6) of epistles or an epistle of Stephen upon the subject of baptism, in which he had announced that he would no longer commune with the Oriental bishops, who held to the custom of baptizing heretics. And it is this epistle which must have stirred up the rage of Firmilian, which shows itself in his epistle to Cyprian, already mentioned. The epistle of Stephen referred to here, however, cannot be identical with that one, or Dionysius would not speak of it in such a pleasant tone. It very likely had something to do with the heresy of Novatian, of which Dionysius is writing. It is no longer extant, and we know only what Dionysius tells us about it in this passage. [2178] Known as Sixtus II. in the list of Roman bishops. On Sixtus I. see above, Bk. IV. chap. 4, note 3. That Xystus (or Sixtus) was martyred under Valerian we are told not only by the Liberian catalogue, but also by Cyprian, in an epistle written shortly before his own death, in 258 (No. 81, al. 80), in which he gives a detailed account of it. There is no reason to doubt the date given by the Liberian catalogue (Aug. 6, 258); for the epistle of Cyprian shows that it must have taken place just about that time, Valerian having sent a very severe rescript to the Senate in the summer of 258. This fixed point for the martyrdom of Xystus enables us to rectify all the dates of the bishops of this period (cf. Lipsius, l.c.). As to the duration of his episcopate, the ancient authorities differ greatly. The Liberian catalogue assigns to it two years eleven months and six days, but this is impossible, as can be gathered from Cyprian's epistle. Lipsius retains the months and days (twelve or six days), rejecting the two years as an interpolation, and thus putting his accession on Aug. 24 (or 31), 257. According to Eusebius, chap. 27, and the Armenian Chron., he held office eleven years, which is quite impossible, and which, as Lipsius remarks, is due to the eleven months which stood in the original source from which the notice was taken, and which appears in the Liberian catalogue. Jerome's version of the Chron. ascribes eight years to his episcopate, but this, too, is quite impossible, and the date given for his accession (the first year of Valerian) is inconsistent with the notice which he gives in regard to Stephen. Xystus upheld the Roman practice of accepting heretics and schismatics without re-baptism, but he seems to have adopted a more conciliatory tone toward those who held the opposite view than his predecessor Stephen had done (cf. Pontius' Vita Cypriani, chap. 14). [2179] The first of Dionysius' epistles on baptism was written to Stephen of Rome, as we learn from chap. 2, above. Four others are mentioned by Eusebius, addressed respectively to Philemon, a Roman presbyter (chap. 7, �1), to Dionysius of Rome (ibid. �6), to Xystus of Rome (chap. 9, �1), and to Xystus and the church of Rome (ibid. �6). [2180] apolousasthai [2181] Dionysius afterward became Xystus' successor as bishop of Rome. See below, chap. 27, note 2. [2182] Of this Philemon we know only that he was a presbyter of Rome at this time (see below, chap. 7, �1). A fragment from Dionysius' epistle to him on the subject of baptism is quoted in that Chapter.

Chapter VI.--The Heresy of Sabellius.

He refers also in the same letter to the heretical teachings of Sabellius, [2183] which were in his time becoming prominent, and says: "For concerning the doctrine now agitated in Ptolemais of Pentapolis,--which is impious and marked by great blasphemy against the Almighty God, the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and contains much unbelief respecting his Only Begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word which became man, and a want of perception of the Holy Spirit,--as there came to me communications from both sides and brethren discussing the matter, I wrote certain letters treating the subject as instructively as, by the help. of God, I was able. [2184] Of these I send [2185] thee copies."

Footnotes

[2183] Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the head of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198-217), and was there perhaps even earlier. He is, and was already in the fourth century, commonly called a native of Africa, but the first one directly to state this is Basil, and the opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views were especially popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the third century, as Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of him does not mention his birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline to the opinion that he was a native of Rome. The matter, in fact, cannot be decided. We are told by Hippolytus that Callistus led Sabellius into heresy, but that after he became pope he excommunicated him in order to gain a reputation for orthodoxy. Of the later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings are no longer extant, though there are apparently quotations from some of them in Epiphanius, H�r. 62, and Athanasius, Contra Arian. Oratio 4. In the third century those Monarchians (modalists) who were known as Patripassians in the West were called Sabellians in the East. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Fathers used the term Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however, tended in the one direction, viz. toward the denial of any personal distinction in the Godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son. And so we characterize every teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic, although this form of Monarchianism is really much older than Sabellius. See Harnack's article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d ed. (abridged translation in Schaff-Herzog), and Stokes' article on Sabellius and Sabellianism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., both of which give the literature, and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full. Neander's account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq. [2184] epesteilEUR tina hos edunethen, paraschontos tou theou, didaskalikoteron huphegoumenos, hon ta antigrapha zpempsEUR soi. Of these letters no fragments are extant. They are not to be confounded with the four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as Dittrich suggests, that they included the letters on the same subject to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in that Chapter. Upon Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. [2185] zpempsa. The epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to a past time, but to the time of the writing of the letter, which is past when the person to whom the letter is sent reads the words. The same word (zpempsa) is used in this sense in Acts xxiii. 30, 2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8. Cf. the remarks of Bishop Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, VI. 11.

Chapter VII.--The Abominable Error of the Heretics; the Divine Vision of Dionysius; and the Ecclesiastical Canon which he received.

1. In the third epistle on baptism which this same Dionysius wrote to Philemon, [2186] the Roman presbyter, he relates the following: "But I examined the works and traditions of the heretics, defiling my mind for a little time with their abominable opinions, but receiving this benefit from them, that I refuted them by myself, and detested them all the more. 2. And when a certain brother among the presbyters restrained me, fearing that I should be carried away with the filth of their wickedness (for it would defile my soul),--in which also, as I perceived, he spoke the truth,--a vision sent from God came and strengthened me. 3. And the word which came to me commanded me, saying distinctly, `Read everything which thou canst take in hand, [2187] for thou art able to correct and prove all; and this has been to thee from the beginning the cause of thy faith.' I received the vision as agreeing with the apostolic word, which says to them that are stronger, `Be skillful money-changers.'" [2188] 4. Then after saying some things concerning all the heresies he adds: "I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father, [2189] Heraclas. [2190] For those who came over from heresies, although they had apostatized from the Church,--or rather had not apostatized, but seemed to meet with them, yet were charged with resorting to some false teacher,--when he had expelled them from the Church he did not receive them back, though they entreated for it, until they had publicly reported all things which they had heard from their adversaries; but then he received them without requiring of them another baptism. [2191] For they had formerly received the Holy Spirit from him." 5. Again, after treating the question thoroughly, he adds: "I have learned also that this [2192] is not a novel practice introduced in Africa alone, but that even long ago in the times of the bishops before us this opinion has been adopted in the most populous churches, and in synods of the brethren in Iconium and Synnada, [2193] and by many others. To overturn their counsels and throw them into strife and contention, I cannot endure. For it is said, [2194] `Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which thy fathers have set.'" [2195] 6. His fourth epistle on baptism [2196] was written to Dionysius [2197] of Rome, who was then a presbyter, but not long after received the episcopate of that church. It is evident from what is stated of him by Dionysius of Alexandria, that he also was a learned and admirable man. Among other things he writes to him as follows concerning Novatus:

Footnotes

[2186] Of this Philemon we know no more than we can gather from this Chapter. Upon Dionysius' position on the re-baptism of heretics, see above, chap. 2, note 4, and upon his other epistles on that subject, see chap. 5, note 6. [2187] Dionysius, in following this vision, was but showing himself a genuine disciple of his master Origen, and exhibiting the true spirit of the earlier Alexandrian school. [2188] hos apostolike phone suntrechon...ginesthe dokimoi trapezitai. This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here, sometimes as part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex. Strom. I. 28, ginesthe de dokimoi trapezitai, ta men apodokimEURzontes, to de kalon katechontes), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers. In some cases it is cited (in connection with 1 Thess. v. 21, 22) on the authority of Paul (in the present case as an "apostolic word"), in other cases on the authority of "Scripture" (he graphe, or gegraptai, or theios logos), in still more cases as an utterance of Christ himself. There can be little doubt that Christ really did utter these words, and that the words used by Paul in 1 Thess. v. 21, 22, were likewise spoken by Christ in the same connection. We may, in fact, with considerable confidence recognize in these words part of a genuine extra-canonical saying of Christ, which was widely current in the early Church. We are to explain the words then not as so many have done, as merely based upon the words of Christ, reported in Matt. xxv. 12 sq., or upon the words of Paul already referred to, but as an actual utterance of the Master. Moreover, we may, since Resch's careful discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha (or extra-canonical sayings of Christ), with considerable confidence assume that these words were handed down to post-apostolic times not in an apocryphal gospel, nor by mere oral tradition, but in the original Hebrew Matthew, of which Papias and many others tell us, and which is probably to be looked upon as a pre-canonical gospel, with the "Ur-Marcus" the main source of our present gospels of Matthew and Luke, and through the "Ur-Marcus" one of the sources of our present Gospel of Mark. Looked upon in this light these words quoted by Dionysius become of great interest to us. They (or a part of the same saying) are quoted more frequently by the Fathers than any other of the Agrapha (Resch, on p. 116 sq. gives 69 instances). Their interpretation, in connection with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. v. 21, 22, has been very satisfactorily discussed by H�nsel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 170 sq. They undoubtedly mean that we are to test and to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad, as a skillful money-changer distinguishes good and bad coins. For a full discussion of this utterance, and for an exhibition of the many other patristic passages in which it occurs, see the magnificent work of Alfred Resch, Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente, in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4, Leipzig, 1889; the most complete and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha which we have. [2189] pEURpa. According to Suicer (Thesaurus) all bishops in the Occident as late as the fifth century were called Pap� as a mark of honor and though the term by that time had begun to be used in a distinctive sense of the bishop of Rome, the older usage continued in parts of the West outside of Italy, until Gregory VII. (a.d. 1075) forbade the use of the name for any other than the pope. In the East the word was used for a long time as the especial title of the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome (see Suicer's Thesaurus and Gieseler's Church Hist. Harper's edition, I. p. 499). [2190] On Heraclas, see Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2. [2191] Compare Cyprian's epistle to Quintus concerning the baptism of heretics (Ep. 70, al. 71). Cyprian there takes the position stated here, that those who have been baptized in the Church and have afterward gone over to heresy and then returned again to the Church are not to be re-baptized, but to be received with the laying on of hands only. This of course does not at all invalidate the position of Cyprian and the others who re-baptized heretics, for they baptized heretics not because they had been heretics, but because they had not received true baptism, nor indeed any baptism at all, which it was impossible, in their view, for a heretic to give. They therefore repudiated (as Cyprian does in the epistle referred to) the term re-baptism, denying that they re-baptized anybody. [2192] Namely the re-baptism (or, as they would say, the baptism) of those who had received baptism only at the hands of heretics standing without the communion of the Church. [2193] Iconium was the principal city of Lycaonia, and Synnada a city of Phrygia. The synod of Iconium referred to here is mentioned also by Firmilian in his epistle to Cyprian, ��7 and 19 (Cypriani Ep. 74, al. 75). From that epistle we learn that the synod was attended by bishops from Phrygia, Cilicia, Galatia, and other countries, and that heretical baptism was entirely rejected by it. Moreover, we learn that Firmilian himself was present at the synod, and that it was held a considerable time before the writing of his epistle. This leads us to place the synod between 230 (on Firmilian's dates, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3) and 240 or 250. Since it took place a considerable time before Firmilian wrote, it can hardly have been held much later than 240. Of the synod of Synnada, we know nothing. It very likely took place about the same time. See Hefele's Conciliengesch. I. p. 107 sq. Dionysius was undoubtedly correct in appealing to ancient custom for the practice which he supported (see above, chap. 2, note 3). [2194] phesi, i.e. "The Scripture saith." [2195] Deut. xix. 14. [2196] On Dionysius' other epistles on baptism, see above, chap. 5, note 6. [2197] On Dionysius of Rome, see below, chap. 27, note 2.

Chapter VIII.--The Heterodoxy of Novatus.

"For with good reason do we feel hatred toward Novatian, [2198] who has sundered the Church and drawn some of the brethren into impiety and blasphemy, and has introduced impious teaching concerning God, and has calumniated our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ as unmerciful. And besides all this he rejects the holy baptism, [2199] and overturns the faith and confession which precede it, [2200] and entirely banishes from them the Holy Ghost, if indeed there was any hope that he would remain or return to them." [2201]

Footnotes

[2198] The majority of the mss. have Noouatiano, a few Nauatiano. This is the only place in which the name Novatian occurs in Eusebius' History, and here it is used not by Eusebius himself but by Dionysius. Eusebius, in referring to the same man, always calls him Novatus (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1). Upon Novatian and his schism, see the same note. [2199] loutron. That Novatian re-baptized all those who came over to him from the Church is stated by Cyprian in his epistle to Jubaianus, �2 (No. 72, al. 73). His principle was similar to that which later actuated the Donatists, namely, that baptism is valid only when performed by priests of true and approved Christian character. Denying, then, that those who defiled themselves and did despite to God s holy Church by communing with the lapsed were true Christians, he could not do otherwise than reject their baptism as quite invalid. [2200] It was the custom from a very early period to cause the candidate for baptism to go through a certain course of training of greater or less length, and to require him to assent to a formulated statement of belief before the administration of the sacred rite. Thus we learn from the Didache that even as early as the very beginning of the second century the custom of pre-baptismal training was already in vogue, and we know that by the third century the system of catechetical instruction was a highly developed thing, extending commonly over two to three years. Candidates for baptism were then known as catechumens. So far as a baptismal creed or confession of faith is concerned, Caspari (see his great work, Studien zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols) has shown that such a creed was in use in the Roman church before the middle of the second century, and that it formed the basis of what we know as the Apostles' Creed, which in the form in which we have it is a later development. Inasmuch as Novatian, so far as we can learn, was perfectly orthodox on matters of faith, he would not have cared to make any alteration in such a creed as the present Apostles' Creed. Exactly what Dionysius means in the present case is not certain. It is possible that he is simply speaking in general terms, assuming that if Novatian does not accept the Church baptism, he must overturn and pervert with it the instruction which had preceded; or it may be that he is thinking of that form of confession to which the candidate was required to give his assent, according to Cyprian, Ep. 69 (al. 70): credis in vitam �ternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam? "Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church?" The latter is the view of Valesius, who is followed by all others that have discussed the passage so far as I am aware. Of course Novatian could not put the last clause of this question to his converts, and hence Dionysius may have been thinking of this omission in using the words he does. At the same time I confess myself unable to agree with others in interpreting him thus. In the first place, it is, to say the least, very doubtful whether the question quoted above from Cyprian formed an article in the baptismal confession of the Church in general. It does not appear in the Apostles' Creed, and can therefore hardly have formed a part of the earlier Roman formula which underlay that. And so far as I am aware there are no traces of the use of such an article in the church of Alexandria. In the second place, Dionysius' language seems to me too general to admit of such a particular application. Had he been thinking of one especial article of the confession, as omitted or altered by Novatian, he would, in my opinion, have given some indication of it. I am, therefore, inclined to take his words in the most general sense, suggested as possible just above. [2201] These last clauses are, according to Valesius, fraught with difficulty. He interprets the auton ("entirely banished from them") as referring to the lapsi, and interpreted thus I find the passage not simply difficult, as he does, but incomprehensible. But I confess myself again unable to accept his interpretation. To me the auton seems not to refer to the lapsi, to whom there has been no direct reference in this fragment quoted by Eusebius, but rather to Novatian's converts, to whom reference is made in the previous sentence, and who are evidently in the mind of the writer in referring to Novatian's baptism in the first clause of the present sentence. It seems to me that Dionysius means simply to say that in rejecting the baptism of the Church, and the "faith and confession which precede it," Novatian necessarily drove away from his converts the Holy Spirit, who works in and through right confession and true baptism. The meaning of the words "if, indeed, there was any hope," &c., thus becomes very clear; Dionysius does not believe, of course, that the Holy Spirit would remain with those who should leave the Church to go with Novatian, but even if he should remain, he would be driven entirely away from them when they blasphemed him and denied his work, by rejecting the true baptism and submitting to another baptism without the Church.

Chapter IX.--The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics.

1. His fifth epistle [2202] was written to Xystus, [2203] bishop of Rome. In this, after saying much against the heretics, he relates a certain occurrence of his time as follows: "For truly, brother, I am in need of counsel, and I ask thy judgment concerning a certain matter which has come to me, fearing that I may be in error. 2. For one of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer, and who, before my ordination, and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, [2204] was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. And when he heard the questions and answers, [2205] he came to me weeping, and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this, because it was full of impiety and blasphemy. [2206] 3. And he said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to God, because he had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception and grace. 4. But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope. 5. But he does not cease lamenting, and he shudders to approach the table, and scarcely, though entreated, does he dare to be present at the prayers." [2207] 6. Besides these there is also extant another epistle of the same man on baptism, addressed by him and his parish to Xystus and the church at Rome. In this he considers the question then agitated with extended argument. And there is extant yet another after these, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, [2208] concerning Lucian. [2209] So much with reference to these.

Footnotes

[2202] i.e. his fifth epistle on the subject of baptism (see above, chap. 5, note 6). The sixth, likewise addressed to Xystus, is mentioned below in �6. [2203] On Xystus II. of Rome, see chap 5, note 5. [2204] On Heraclas, see above Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2. [2205] See the previous Chapter, note 3. [2206] The reference here, of course, is not to the Novatians, because this old man, who had been a regular attendant upon the orthodox Church since the time of Heraclas, if not before, had been baptized by the heretics long before Novatian arose. The epistle seems to contain no reference to Novatian; at least, the fragment which we have is dealing with an entirely different subject. [2207] Dittrich finds in this epistle an evidence that Dionysius was not fully convinced of the advisability of re-baptizing converts from heretical bodies, that he wavered in fact between the Eastern and the Roman practices, but I am unable to see that the epistle implies anything of the kind. It is not that he doubts the necessity of re-baptism in ordinary cases,--he is not discussing that subject at all,--the question is, does long communion itself take the place of baptism; does not a man, unwittingly baptized, gain through such communion the grace from the Spirit which is ordinarily conveyed in baptism, and might not the rite of baptism at so late a date be an insult to the Spirit, who might have been working through the sacrament of the eucharist during all these years? It is this question which Dionysius desires to have Xystus assist him in answering--a question which has nothing to do, in Dionysius' mind, with the validity or non-validity of heretical baptism, for it will be noticed that he does not base his refusal to baptize the man upon the fact that he has already been baptized, partially, or imperfectly, or in any other way, but solely upon the fact that he has for so long been partaking of the eucharist. [2208] On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. [2209] So many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot speak with certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here. But it may perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian Confessor is meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by granting letters of pardon indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of regular custom and of Cyprian's authority (see Cypriani Ep. 16, 17, 20, 21, 22; al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred to, the epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions upon which they were to be received again into the Church. That the epistle did not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do with the subject of baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not numbered among the epistles on that subject, as six others are.

Chapter X.--Valerian and the Persecution under him.

1. Gallus and the other rulers, [2210] having held the government less than two years, were overthrown, and Valerian, with his son Gallienus, received the empire. The circumstances which Dionysius relates of him we may learn from his epistle to Hermammon, [2211] in which he gives the following account: 2. "And in like manner it is revealed to John; `For there was given to him,' he says, `a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy; and there was given unto him authority and forty and two months.' [2212] 3. It is wonderful that both of these things occurred under Valerian; and it is the more remarkable in this case when we consider his previous conduct, for he had been mild and friendly toward the men of God, for none of the emperors before him had treated them so kindly and favorably; and not even those who were said openly to be Christians [2213] received them with such manifest hospitality and friendliness as he did at the beginning of his reign. For his entire house was filled with pious persons and was a church of God. 4. But the teacher and ruler of the synagogue of the Magi from Egypt [2214] persuaded him to change his course, urging him to slay and persecute pure and holy men [2215] because they opposed and hindered the corrupt and abominable incantations. For there are and there were men who, being present and being seen, though they only breathed and spoke, were able to scatter the counsels of the sinful demons. And he induced him to practice initiations and abominable sorceries and to offer unacceptable sacrifices; to slay innumerable children and to sacrifice the offspring of unhappy fathers; to divide the bowels of new-born babes and to mutilate and cut to pieces the creatures of God, as if by such practices they could attain happiness." 5. He adds to this the following: "Splendid indeed were the thank-offerings which Macrianus brought them [2216] for the empire which was the object of his hopes. He is said to have been formerly the emperor's general finance minister [2217] ; yet he did nothing praiseworthy or of general benefit, [2218] but fell under the prophetic saying, 6. `Woe unto those who prophesy from their own heart and do not consider the general good.' [2219] For he did not perceive the general Providence, nor did he look for the judgment of Him who is before all, and through all, and over all. Wherefore he became an enemy of his Catholic [2220] Church, and alienated and estranged himself from the compassion of God, and fled as far as possible from his salvation. In this he showed the truth of his own name." [2221] 7. And again, farther on he says: "For Valerian, being instigated to such acts by this man, was given over to insults and reproaches, according to what was said by Isaiah: `They have chosen their own ways and their abominations in which their soul delighted; I also will choose their delusions and will render unto them their sins.' [2222] 8. But this man [2223] madly desired the kingdom though unworthy of it, and being unable to put the royal garment on his crippled body, set forward his two sons to bear their father's sins. [2224] For concerning them the declaration which God spoke was plain, `Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.' [2225] 9. For heaping on the heads of his sons his own evil desires, in which he had met with success, [2226] he wiped off upon them his own wickedness and hatred toward God." Dionysius relates these things concerning Valerian.

Footnotes

[2210] hoi amphi ton GEURllon. Eusebius is undoubtedly referring to Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent, and �milian, his enemy and successor. Gallus himself, with his son Volusian, whom he made C�sar and co-regent, reigned from the latter part of the year 251 to about the middle of the year 253, when the empire was usurped by �milian, and he and his son were slain. �milian was recognized by the senate as the legal emperor, but within four months Valerian, Gallus' leading general,--who had already been proclaimed emperor by his legions,--revenged the murder of Gallus and came to the throne. Valerian reigned until 260, when his son Gallienus, who had been associated with him in the government from the beginning, succeeded him and reigned until 268. [2211] Upon this epistle, see above, chap. 1, note 3. [2212] Rev. xiii. 5. [2213] Philip was the only emperor before this time that was openly said to have been a Christian (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 34, note 2). Alexander Severus was very favorable to the Christians, and Eusebius may have been thinking of him also in this connection. [2214] viz. Macrianus, one of the ablest of Valerian's generals, who had acquired great influence over him and had been raised by him to the highest position in the army and made his chief counselor. Dionysius is the only one to tell us that he was the chief of the Egyptian magicians. Gibbon doubts the statement, but Macrianus may well have been an Egyptian by birth and devoted, as so many of the Egyptians were, to arts of magic, and have gained power over Valerian in this way which he could have gained in no other. It is not necessary of course to understand Dionysius' words as implying that Macrianus was officially at the head of the body of Egyptian magicians, but simply that he was the greatest, or one of the greatest, of them. He figures in our other sources simply as a military and political character, but it was natural for Dionysius to emphasize his addiction to magic, though he could hardly have done it had Macrianus' practices in this respect not been commonly known. [2215] The persecution which the Christians suffered under Valerian was more terrible than any other except that of Diocletian. Numerous calamities took place during his reign. The barbarians were constantly invading and ravaging the borders of the empire, and on the east the Persians did great damage. Still worse was the terrible plague which had begun in the reign of Decius and raged for about fifteen years. All these calamities aroused the religious fears of the emperor. Dionysius tells us that he was induced by Macrianus to have recourse to human sacrifices and other similar means of penetrating the events of the future, and when these rites failed, the presence of Christians--irreligious men hated by the gods--in the imperial family was urged as the reason for the failure, and thus the hostility of the emperor was aroused against all Christians. As a consequence an edict was published in 257 requiring all persons to conform at least outwardly to the religion of Rome on the penalty of exile. And at the same time the Christians were prohibited from holding religious services, upon pain of death. In 258 followed a rescript of terrible severity. Only the clergy and the higher ranks of the laity were attacked, but they were sentenced to death if they refused to repent, and the clergy, apparently, whether they repented or not. The persecution continued until Valerian's captivity, which took place probably late in 260. The dates during this period are very uncertain, but Dionysius' statement that the persecution continued forty-two months is probably not far out of the way; from late in the year 257 to the year 261, when it was brought to an end by Gallienus. In Egypt and the Orient the persecution seems to have continued a few months longer than elsewhere (see chap. 13, note 3). The martyrs were very numerous during the Valerian persecution, especially in Rome and Africa. The most noted were Cyprian and Xystus II. On the details of the persecution, see Tillemont, H. E. IV. p. 1 sq. [2216] i.e. the evil spirits. As Valesius remarks, the meaning is that since the evil spirits had promised him power, he showed his gratitude to them by inducing the Emperor Valerian to persecute the Christians. [2217] epi ton katholou logon. The phrase is equivalent to the Latin Rationalis or Procurator summ� rei, an official who had charge of the imperial finances, and who might be called either treasurer or finance minister. The position which Macrianus held seems to have been the highest civil position in the empire (cf. Valesius' note ad locum). Gibbon calls him Pr�torian Prefect, and since he was the most famous of Valerian's generals, he doubtless held that position also, though I am not aware that any of our sources state that he did. [2218] The Greek contains a play upon the words katholou and logos in this sentence. It reads hos proteron men epi ton katholou logon legomenos einai basileos, ouden eulogon oude katholikon ephronesen. The play upon the word katholou continues in the next sentence, where the Greek runs to katholou me blepousin, and in the following, where it reads ou gar suneke ten katholou pronoian. Again in the next sentence the adjective katholike occurs: "his universal Church." [2219] Ezek. xiii. 3. [2220] katholikes, "catholic" in the sense of "general" or "universal," the play upon the word still continuing. [2221] Makrianos. The Greek word makrEURn means "far," "at a distance." [2222] Isa. lxvi. 3, 4. [2223] i.e. Macrianus. [2224] Valerian reposed complete confidence in Macrianus and followed his advice in the conduct of the wars against the Persians. The result was that by Macrianus' "weak or wicked counsels the imperial army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military skill were equally unavailing." (Gibbon.) Dionysius, in chap. 23, below, directly states that Macrianus betrayed Valerian, and this is the view of the case commonly taken. Valerian fell into the hands of the Persians (late in 260 a.d.), and Macrianus was proclaimed emperor by his troops, and on account of his lameness (as both Dionysius and Zonaras put it) or his age, associated with him his two sons, Quietus and Macrianus. After some months he left his son Quietus in charge of Syria, and designing to make himself master of the Occident, marched with his son Macrianus against Gallienus, but was met in Illyrium by the Pretender Aureolus (262) and defeated, and both himself and son slain. His son Quietus meanwhile was besieged in Edessa by the Pretender Odenathus and slain. Cf. Tillemont's Histoire des Empereurs, III. p. 333 sq. and p. 340 sq. [2225] Ex. xx. 5. [2226] eutuchei. Three mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Burton, Stroth (and by the translators Closs, Crus�, and Salmond in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 107), read etuchei, "failed" ("in whose gratification he failed"). eutuchei, however, is supported by overwhelming ms. authority, and is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and approved by Valesius in his notes. It seems at first sight the harder reading, and is, therefore, in itself to be preferred to the easier reading, etuchei. Although it seems harder, it is really fully in accord with what has preceded. Macrianus had not made himself emperor (if Dionysius is to be believed), but he had succeeded fully in his desires, in that he had raised his sons to the purple. If he had acquired such power as to be able to do that, he must have given them the position, because he preferred to govern in that way; and if that be so, he could hardly be said to have failed in his desires.

Chapter XI.--The Events which happened at this Time to Dionysius and those in Egypt.

1. But as regards the persecution which prevailed so fiercely in his reign, and the sufferings which Dionysius with others endured on account of piety toward the God of the universe, his own words shall show, which he wrote in answer to Germanus, [2227] a contemporary bishop who was endeavoring to slander him. His statement is as follows: 2. "Truly I am in danger of falling into great folly and stupidity through being forced to relate the wonderful providence of God toward us. But since it is said [2228] that `it is good to keep close the secret of a king, but it is honorable to reveal the works of God,' [2229] I will join issue with the violence of Germanus. 3. I went not alone to �milianus; [2230] but my fellow-presbyter, Maximus, [2231] and the deacons Faustus, [2232] Eusebius, [2233] and Ch�remon, [2234] and a brother who was present from Rome, went with me. 4. But �milianus did not at first say to me: `Hold no assemblies;' [2235] for this was superfluous to him, and the last thing to one who was seeking to accomplish the first. For he was not concerned about our assembling, but that we ourselves should not be Christians. And he commanded me to give this up; supposing if I turned from it, the others also would follow me. 5. But I answered him, neither unsuitably nor in many words: `We must obey God rather than men.' [2236] And I testified openly that I worshiped the one only God, and no other; and that I would not turn from this nor would I ever cease to be a Christian. Thereupon he commanded us to go to a village near the desert, called Cephro. [2237] 6. But listen to the very words which were spoken on both sides, as they were recorded: "Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus, [2238] and Ch�remon being arraigned, �milianus the prefect said: 7. `I have reasoned verbally with you concerning the clemency which our rulers have shown to you; for they have given you the opportunity to save yourselves, if you will turn to that which is according to nature, and worship the gods that preserve their empire, and forget those that are contrary to nature. [2239] What then do you say to this? For I do not think that you will be ungrateful for their kindness, since they would turn you to a better course.' 8. Dionysius replied: `Not all people worship all gods; but each one those whom he approves. We therefore reverence and worship the one God, the Maker of all; who hath given the empire to the divinely favored and august Valerian and Gallienus; and we pray to him continually for their empire that it may remain unshaken.' 9. �milianus, the prefect, said to them: `But who forbids you to worship him, if he is a god, together with those who are gods by nature. For ye have been commanded to reverence the gods, and the gods whom all know.' Dionysius answered: 10. `We worship no other.' �milianus, the prefect, said to them: `I see that you are at once ungrateful, and insensible to the kindness of our sovereigns. Wherefore ye shall not remain in this city. But ye shall be sent into the regions of Libya, to a place called Cephro. For I have chosen this place at the command of our sovereigns, and it shall by no means be permitted you or any others, either to hold assemblies, or to enter into the so called cemeteries. [2240] 11. But if any one shall be seen without the place which I have commanded, or be found in any assembly, he will bring peril on himself. For suitable punishment shall not fail. Go, therefore where ye have been ordered.' "And he hastened me away, though I was sick, not granting even a day's respite. What opportunity then did I have, either to hold assemblies, or not to hold them?" [2241] 12. Farther on he says: "But through the help of the Lord we did not give up the open assembly. But I called together the more diligently those who were in the city, as if I were with them; being, so to speak, [2242] `absent in body but present in spirit.' [2243] But in Cephro a large church gathered with us of the brethren that followed us from the city, and those that joined us from Egypt; and there `God opened unto us a door for the Word.' [2244] 13. At first we were persecuted and stoned; but afterwards not a few of the heathen forsook the idols and turned to God. For until this time they had not heard the Word, since it was then first sown by us. 14. And as if God had brought us to them for this purpose, when we had performed this ministry he transferred us to another place. For �milianus, as it appeared, desired to transport us to rougher and more Libyan-like places; [2245] so he commanded them to assemble from all quarters in Mareotis, [2246] and assigned to them different villages throughout the country. But he ordered us to be placed nearer the highway that we might be seized first. [2247] For evidently he arranged and prepared matters so that whenever he wished to seize us he could take all of us without difficulty. 15. When I was first ordered to go to Cephro I did not know where the place was, and had scarcely ever heard the name; yet I went readily and cheerfully. But when I was told that I was to remove to the district of Colluthion, [2248] those who were present know how I was affected. 16. For here I will accuse myself. At first I was grieved and greatly disturbed; for though these places were better known and more familiar to us, yet the country was said to be destitute of brethren and of men of character, and to be exposed to the annoyances of travelers and incursions of robbers. 17. But I was comforted when the brethren reminded me that it was nearer the city, and that while Cephro afforded us much intercourse with the brethren from Egypt, so that we were able to extend the Church more widely, as this place was nearer the city we should enjoy more frequently the sight of those who were truly beloved and most closely related and dearest to us. For they would come and remain, and special meetings [2249] could be held, as in the more remote suburbs. And thus it turned out." After other matters he writes again as follows of the things which happened to him: 18. "Germanus indeed boasts of many confessions. He can speak forsooth of many adversities which he himself has endured. But is he able to reckon up as many as we can, of sentences, confiscations, proscriptions, plundering of goods, loss of dignities, contempt of worldly glory, disregard for the flatteries of governors and of councilors, and patient endurance of the threats of opponents, of outcries, of perils and persecutions, and wandering and distress, and all kinds of tribulation, such as came upon me under Decius and Sabinus, [2250] and such as continue even now under �milianus? But where has Germanus been seen? And what account is there of him? 19. But I turn from this great folly into which I am falling on account of Germanus. And for the same reason I desist from giving to the brethren who know it an account of everything which took place." 20. The same writer also in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus [2251] mentions some particulars of the persecution as follows: "As our people are many and unknown to you, it would be superfluous to give their names; but understand that men and women, young and old, maidens and matrons, soldiers and civilians, of every race and age, some by scourging and fire, others by the sword, have conquered in the strife and received their crowns. 21. But in the case of some a very long time was not sufficient to make them appear acceptable to the Lord; as, indeed, it seems also in my own case, that sufficient time has not yet elapsed. Wherefore he has retained me for the time which he knows to be fitting, saying, `In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee.' [2252] 22. For as you have inquired of our affairs and desire us to tell you how we are situated, you have heard fully that when we--that is, myself and Gaius and Faustus and Peter and Paul [2253] --were led away as prisoners by a centurion and magistrates, with their soldiers and servants, certain persons from Mareotis came and dragged us away by force, as we were unwilling to follow them. [2254] 23. But now I and Gaius and Peter are alone, deprived of the other brethren, and shut up in a desert and dry place in Libya, three days' journey from Par�tonium." [2255] 24. He says farther on: "The presbyters, Maximus, [2256] Dioscorus, [2257] Demetrius, and Lucius [2258] concealed themselves in the city, and visited the brethren secretly; for Faustinus and Aquila, [2259] who are more prominent in the world, are wandering in Egypt. But the deacons, Faustus, Eusebius, and Ch�remon, [2260] have survived those who died in the pestilence. Eusebius is one whom God has strengthened and endowed from the first to fulfill energetically the ministrations for the imprisoned confessors, and to attend to the dangerous task of preparing for burial the bodies of the perfected and blessed martyrs. 25. For as I have said before, unto the present time the governor continues to put to death in a cruel manner those who are brought to trial. And he destroys some with tortures, and wastes others away with imprisonment and bonds; and he suffers no one to go near them, and investigates whether any one does so. Nevertheless God gives relief to the afflicted through the zeal and persistence of the brethren." 26. Thus far Dionysius. But it should be known that Eusebius, whom he calls a deacon, shortly afterward became bishop of the church of Laodicea in Syria; [2261] and Maximus, of whom he speaks as being then a presbyter, succeeded Dionysius himself as bishop of Alexandria. [2262] But the Faustus who was with him, and who at that time was distinguished for his confession, was preserved until the persecution in our day, [2263] when being very old and full of days, he closed his life by martyrdom, being beheaded. But such are the things which happened at that time [2264] to Dionysius.

Footnotes

[2227] On Germanus, and Dionysius' epistle to him, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2. [2228] Literally "it says" (phesi), a common formula in quoting from Scripture. [2229] Tob. xii. 7. [2230] This �milianus, prefect of Egypt, under whom the persecution was carried on in Alexandria during Valerian's reign, later, during the reign of Gallienus, was induced (or compelled) by the troops of Alexandria to revolt against Gallienus, and assume the purple himself. He was defeated, however, by Theodotus, Gallienus' general, and was put to death in prison, in what year we do not know. Cf. Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. III. p. 342 sq. [2231] Maximus is mentioned a number of times in this Chapter in connection with the persecution. After the death of Dionysius he succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, and as such is referred to below, in chaps. 28, 30, and 32. For the dates of his episcopate, see chap. 28, note 10. [2232] On Faustus, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10. [2233] In regard to this deacon Eusebius, who later became bishop of Laodicea, see chap. 32, note 12. [2234] Ch�remon is mentioned three times in the present Chapter, but we have no other reliable information in regard to him. [2235] We may gather from �11, below, that Germanus had accused Dionysius of neglecting to hold the customary assemblies, and of seeking safety by flight. Valesius, in his note ad locum, remarks, "Dionysius was accused by Germanus of neglecting to hold the assemblies of the brethren before the beginning of the persecution, and of providing for his own safety by flight. For as often as persecution arose the bishops were accustomed first to convene the people, that they might exhort them to hold fast to their faith in Christ. Then they baptized infants and catechumens, that they might not depart this life without baptism, and they gave the eucharist to the faithful, because they did not know how long the persecution might last." Valesius refers for confirmation of his statements to an epistle sent to Pope Hormisdas, by Germanus and others, in regard to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica (circa a.d. 519). I have not been able to verify the reference. The custom mentioned by Valesius is certainly a most natural one, and therefore Valesius' statements are very likely quite true, though there seems to be little direct testimony upon which to rest them. [2236] Acts v. 29. [2237] We learn from �10, below, that Cephro was in Libya. Beyond this nothing is known of the place so far as I am aware. [2238] This Marcellus, the only one not mentioned in �3, above, is an otherwise unknown person. [2239] ton para phusin. That the ton refers to "gods" (viz. the gods of the Christians, �milianus thinking of them as plural) seems clear, both on account of the theous just preceding, and also in view of the fact that in �9 we have the phrase ton kata phusin theon. A contrast, therefore, is drawn in the present case between the gods of the heathen and those of the Christians. [2240] koimeteria; literally, "sleeping-places." The word was used only in this sense in classic Greek; but the Christians, looking upon death only as a sleep, early applied the name to their burial places; hence �milian speaks of them as the "so-called (kaloumena) cemeteries." [2241] See above, note 9. [2242] hos eipein, a reading approved by Valesius in his notes, and adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen. This and the readings hos eipen, "as he said" (adopted by Stroth, Zimmermann, and Laemmer), and hos eipon, "as I said" (adopted by Stephanus, Valesius in his text, and Burton), are about equally supported by ms. authority, while some mss. read hos eipen ho apostolos, "as the apostle said." It is impossible to decide with any degree of assurance between the first three readings. [2243] 1 Cor. v. 3. [2244] Col. iv. 3. [2245] Libukoterous topous. Libya was an indefinite term among the ancients for that part of Africa which included the Great Desert and all the unexplored country lying west and south of it. Almost nothing was known about the country, and the desert and the regions beyond were peopled by the fancy with all sorts of terrible monsters, and were looked upon as the theater of the most dire forces, natural and supernatural. As a consequence, the term "Libyan" became a synonym for all that was most disagreeable and dreadful in nature. [2246] Mareotis, or Mareia, or Maria, was one of the land districts into which Egypt was divided. A lake, a town situated on the shore of the lake, and the district in which they lay, all bore the same name. The district Mareotis lay just south of Alexandria, but did not include it, for Alexandria and Ptolemais formed an independent sphere of administration sharply separated from the thirty-six land districts of the country. Cf. Bk. II. chap. 17, notes 10 and 12, above. Mommsen (Roman Provinces, Scribner's ed. Vol. II. p. 255) remarks that these land districts, like the cities, became the basis of episcopal dioceses. This we should expect to be the case, but I am not aware that we can prove it to have been regularly so, at any rate not during the earlier centuries. Cf. e.g. Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church, London ed., I. p. 192 sq. [2247] hemas de mallon en hodo kai protous katalephthesomenous ztaxen. [2248] ta Kollouthionos (sc. mere), i.e. the parts or regions of Colluthion. Of Colluthion, so far as I am aware, nothing is known. It seems to have been a town, possibly a section of country in the district of Mareotis. Nicephorus spells the word with a single l, which Valesius contends is more correct because the word is derived from Colutho, which was not an uncommon name in Egypt (see Valesius' note ad locum). [2249] kata meros sunagogai, literally, "partial meetings." It is plain enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were allowed to hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and were not compelled always to attend the city church, which might be a number of miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this passage is sufficient to warrant Valesius' conclusion, that in the time of Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the brethren met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do not appear to indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were in a different state then from that which existed in the time of Athanasius, who, in his Apology to Constantius, �14 sq., expressly speaks of a number of church buildings in Alexandria. [2250] Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, �2, from which passage we may gather that he held the same position under Decius which �milianus held under Valerian (see note 3 on the Chapter referred to). [2251] We learn from chap. 20, below, that this epistle to Domitius and Didymus was one of Dionysius' regular festal epistles (for there is no ground for assuming that a different epistle is referred to in that Chapter). Domitius and Didymus are otherwise unknown personages. Eusebius evidently (as we can see both from this Chapter and from Chapter 20) supposes this epistle to refer to the persecution, of which Dionysius has been speaking in that portion of his epistle to Germanus quoted in this Chapter; namely, to the persecution of Valerian. But he is clearly mistaken in this supposition; for, as we can see from a comparison of �22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40, �6 sq., Dionysius is referring in this epistle to the same persecution to which he referred in that Chapter; namely, to the persecution of Decius. But the present epistle was written (as we learn from �23) while this same persecution was still going on, and, therefore, some years before the time of Valerian's persecution, and before the writing of the epistle to Germanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2), with which Eusebius here associates it. Cf. Valesius' note ad locum and Dittrich's Dionysius der Grosse, p. 40 sq. [2252] Isa. xlix. 8. [2253] See above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10. [2254] See ibid. �6 sq. [2255] Par�tonium was an important town and harbor on the Mediterranean, about 150 miles west of Alexandria. A day's journey among the ancients commonly denoted about 180 to 200 stadia (22 to 25 miles), so that Dionysius retreat must have lain some 60 to 70 miles from Par�tonium, probably to the south of it. [2256] On Maximus, see above, note 5. [2257] Of Dioscorus we know only what is told us here. He is not to be identified with the lad mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 41, �19 (see note 17 on that Chapter). [2258] Of Demetrius and Lucius we know only what is recorded here. [2259] Faustinus and Aquila are known to us only from this passage. [2260] On these three deacons, see above, notes 6-8. [2261] See below, chap. 32, �5. [2262] See chap. 28, note 8. [2263] That is, until the persecution of Diocletian, a.d. 303 sq. [2264] That is, according to Eusebius, in the time of Valerian, but only the events related in the first part of the Chapter took place at that time; those recorded in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus in the time of Decius. See above, note 25.

Chapter XII.--The Martyrs in C�sarea in Palestine.

During the above-mentioned persecution under Valerian, three men in C�sarea in Palestine, being conspicuous in their confession of Christ, were adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming food for wild beasts. One of them was called Priscus, another Malchus, and the name of the third was Alexander. [2265] They say that these men, who lived in the country, acted at first in a cowardly manner, as if they were careless and thoughtless. For when the opportunity was given to those who longed for the prize with heavenly desire, they treated it lightly, lest they should seize the Crown of martyrdom prematurely. But having deliberated on the matter, they hastened to C�sarea, and went before the judge and met the end we have mentioned. They relate that besides these, in the same persecution and the same city, a certain woman endured a similar conflict. But it is reported that she belonged to the sect of Marcion. [2266]

Footnotes

[2265] Of these three men we know only what is told us in this Chapter. [2266] Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. IV. chap. 15, and in Martyrs of Pal. chap. 10. In H. E. V. 16, it is stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many martyrs, but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowledge them as Christians, and would not recognize them even when they were martyred together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the eyes of the state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.

Chapter XIII.--The Peace under Gallienus.

1. Shortly after this Valerian was reduced to slavery by the barbarians, [2267] and his son having become sole ruler, conducted the government more prudently. He immediately restrained the persecution against us by public proclamations, [2268] and directed the bishops to perform in freedom their customary duties, in a rescript [2269] which ran as follows: 2. "The Emperor C�sar Publius Licinius Gallienus, Pius, Felix, Augustus, [2270] to Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius, [2271] and the other bishops. I have ordered the bounty of my gift to be declared through all the world, that they may depart from the places of religious worship. [2272] And for this purpose you may use this copy of my rescript, that no one may molest you. And this which you are now enabled lawfully to do, has already for a long time been conceded by me. [2273] Therefore Aurelius Cyrenius, [2274] who is the chief administrator of affairs, [2275] will observe this ordinance which I have given." 3. I have given this in a translation from the Latin, that it may be more readily understood. Another decree of his is extant addressed to other bishops, permitting them to take possession again of the so-called cemeteries. [2276]

Footnotes

[2267] Valerian was taken captive by Sapor, king of Persia, probably late in the year 260 (the date is somewhat uncertain) and died in captivity. His son Gallienus, already associated with him in the empire, became sole emperor when his father fell into the Persians' hands. [2268] Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts (progrEURmmata, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from the rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to the bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put a stop to the persecution,--that they in fact made Christianity a religio licita, and that for the first time. The right of the Christians as a body (the corpus Christianorum) to hold property is recognized in this rescript, and this involves the legal recognition of that body. Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the "bishops," which implies a recognition of the organization of the Church. See the article of G�rres, Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus, in the Jahrb. f�r prot. Theol., 1877, p. 606 sq. [2269] antigraphe: the technical term for an epistle containing private instructions, in distinction from an edict or public proclamation. This rescript was addressed to the bishops of the province of Egypt (including Dionysius of Alexandria). It was evidently issued some time after the publication of the edicts themselves. Its exact date is uncertain, but it was probably written immediately after the fall of the usurper Macrianus (i.e. late in 261 or early in 262), during the time of whose usurpation the benefits of Gallienus' edicts of toleration could of course not have been felt in Egypt and the Orient. [2270] Eusebes, Eutuches, Sebastos. [2271] Of Pinnas and Demetrius we know nothing. The identification of Demetrius with the presbyter mentioned in chap. 11, �24, might be suggested as possible. There is nothing to prevent such an identification, nor, on the other hand, is there anything to be urged in its favor beyond mere agreement in a name which was not an uncommon one in Egypt. [2272] hopos apo ton topon ton threskeusimon apochoresosi. This is commonly taken to mean that the "Christians may come forth from their religious retreats," which, however, does not seem to be the sense of the original. I prefer to read, with Closs, "that the heathen may depart from the Christians' places of worship," from those, namely, which they had taken possession of during the persecution. [2273] The reference is doubtless to the edicts, referred to above, which he had issued immediately after his accession, but which had not been sooner put in force in Egypt because of the usurper Macrianus (see above, note 3). [2274] So far as I am aware, this man is known to us only from this passage. [2275] ho tou megistou prEURgmatos prostateuon. Heinichen, following Valesius, identifies this office with the ho epi ton katholou logon (mentioned in chap. 10, �5), with the ho ton katholou logon zparchos (mentioned in Bk. IX. chap. 11, �4), &c. For the nature of that office, see chap. 10, note 8. The phrase used in this passage seems to suggest the identification, and yet I am inclined to think, inasmuch as the rescript has to do specifically with the Church in Egypt, that Aurelius Cyrenius was not (as Macrianus was under Valerian) the emperor's general finance minister, in charge of the affairs of the empire, but simply the supreme finance minister or administrator of Egypt (cf. Mommsen's Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner's ed., II. p. 268). [2276] The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as meeting-places for religious worship, had been denied to the Christians by Valerian. On the origin of the word koimeteria, see chap. 11, note 14.

Chapter XIV.--The Bishops that flourished at that Time.

At that time Xystus [2277] was still presiding over the church of Rome, and Demetrianus, [2278] successor of Fabius, [2279] over the church of Antioch, and Firmilianus [2280] over that of C�sarea in Cappadocia; and besides these, Gregory [2281] and his brother Athenodorus, [2282] friends of Origen, were presiding over the churches in Pontus; and Theoctistus [2283] of C�sarea in Palestine having died, Domnus [2284] received the episcopate there. He held it but a short time, and Theotecnus, [2285] our contemporary, succeeded him. He also was a member of Origen's school. But in Jerusalem, after the death of Mazabanes, [2286] Hymen�us, [2287] who has been celebrated among us for a great many years, succeeded to his seat.

Footnotes

[2277] On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5. [2278] On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. [2279] On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7. [2280] On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3. [2281] Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-C�sarea in Pontus from about 233-270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note 1. [2282] On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2. [2283] On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27. [2284] Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of Rome (254-257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may gather from this Chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed. Eusebius' words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few months. [2285] The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of Samosata. [2286] On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5. [2287] According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymen�us was bishop of Jerusalem from 265-298. It is expressly stated in the Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been unacquainted, and that Hymen�us was bishop at any rate as early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Mazabanes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.

Chapter XV.--The Martyrdom of Marinus at C�sarea.

1. At this time, when the peace of the churches had been everywhere [2288] restored, Marinus in C�sarea in Palestine, who was honored for his military deeds, and illustrious by virtue of family and wealth, was beheaded for his testimony to Christ, on the following account. 2. The vine-branch [2289] is a certain mark of honor among the Romans, and those who obtain it become, they say, centurions. A place being vacated, the order of succession called Marinus to this position. But when he was about to receive the honor, another person came before the tribunal and claimed that it was not legal, according to the ancient laws, for him to receive the Roman dignity, as he was a Christian and did not sacrifice to the emperors; but that the office belonged rather to him. 3. Thereupon the judge, whose name was Ach�us, [2290] being disturbed, first asked what opinion Marinus held. And when he perceived that he continually confessed himself a Christian, he gave him three hours for reflection. 4. When he came out from the tribunal, Theotecnus, [2291] the bishop there, took him aside and conversed with him, and taking his hand led him into the church. And standing with him within, in the sanctuary, he raised his cloak a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by his side; and at the same time he placed before him the Scripture of the divine Gospels, and told him to choose which of the two he wished. And without hesitation he reached forth his right hand, and took the divine Scripture. "Hold fast then," says Theotecnus to him, "hold fast to God, and strengthened by him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen, and go in peace." 5. Immediately on his return the herald cried out calling him to the tribunal, for the appointed time was already completed. And standing before the tribunal, and manifesting greater zeal for the faith, immediately, as he was, he was led away and finished his course by death.

Footnotes

[2288] The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of Gallienus' edict of toleration and after peace had been, as Eusebius remarks, everywhere restored to the churches, has caused historians some difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and others, and with especial force by G�rres in the Jahrb�cher f�r prot. Theol., 1877, p. 620 sq., that the martyrdom of Marinus took place while the usurper Macrianus, who was exceedingly hostile to the Christians, was still in power in the East, and at a time, therefore, when the edicts of Gallienus could have no force there. This of course explains the difficulty completely. The martyrdom then must have taken place toward the beginning of Gallienus' reign, for Macrianus was slain as early as 262. Of the martyr Marinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here. [2289] to klema. The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-branch or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Vitis. [2290] Ach�us is an otherwise unknown person. That he was governor of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assumption, for the term used of him (dikastes) is quite indefinite. [2291] On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, note 9.

Chapter XVI.--Story in Regard to Astyrius.

Astyrius [2292] also is commemorated on account of his pious boldness in connection with this affair. He was a Roman of senatorial rank, and in favor with the emperors, and well known to all on account of his noble birth and wealth. Being present at the martyr's death, he took his body away on his shoulder, and arraying him in a splendid and costly garment, prepared him for the grave in a magnificent manner, and gave him fitting burial. [2293] The friends of this man, that remain to our day, relate many other facts concerning him.

Footnotes

[2292] We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind, and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He probably concluded, from Eusebius' account of him, that he also suffered martyrdom. [2293] Burton and Crus� close the Chapter at this point, throwing the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen, Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.

Chapter XVII.--The Signs at Paneas of the Great Might of our Saviour.

Among these is also the following wonder. At C�sarea Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas, [2294] springs are shown at the foot of the Mountain Panius, out of which the Jordan flows. They say that on a certain feast day, a victim was thrown in, [2295] and that through the power of the demon it marvelously disappeared and that which happened was a famous wonder to those who were present. Astyrius was once there when these things were done, and seeing the multitude astonished at the affair, he pitied their delusion; and looking up to heaven he supplicated the God over all through Christ, that he would rebuke the demon who deceived the people, and bring the men's delusion to an end. And they say that when he had prayed thus, immediately the sacrifice floated on the surface of the fountain. And thus the miracle departed; and no wonder was ever afterward performed at the place.

Footnotes

[2294] C�sarea Philippi (to be distinguished from C�sarea, the chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous Chapters) was originally called Paneas by the Greeks,--a name which it retained even after the name C�sarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p. 409 sq. [2295] Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been sent.

Chapter XVIII.--The Statue which the Woman with an Issue of Blood erected. [2296]

1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, [2297] received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. 2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, [2298] is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. 3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. 4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, [2299] the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.

Footnotes

[2296] This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (H. E. V. 21) and Philostorgius (H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks (Eccles. Hist., Harper's ed. I. p. 70), "Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on account of a soteri or theo appearing in the inscription." There can be no doubt of Eusebius' honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that the statue commemorated something quite different from that which Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole Chapter, see Heinichen's Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq. [2297] See Matt. ix. 20 sq. [2298] hou para tois posin epi tes steles autes. This is commonly translated "at his feet, upon the pedestal"; but, as Heinichen remarks, in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating stele "pedestal." Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a representation upon the base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But this interpretation, as Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the use of epi in the sense of "near" or "beside," we have numerous examples (see the instances given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, s.v.). [2299] Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to idolatry. In consequence of this disapproval he fell into great disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited by the iconoclasts at the second Council of Nic�a, in 787, and his orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defenders of image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day.

Chapter XIX.--The Episcopal Chair of James.

The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself [2300] and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, [2301] was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, [2302] the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter.

Footnotes

[2300] That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom's Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius' note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11. [2301] See Gal. i. 19. On the actual relationship of "James, the Brother of the Lord" to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. [2302] There can be no doubt that a chair (thronos), said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily remarks: "Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als einen Stuhl!" The beginning of that veneration of relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen's Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Crus� has unaccountably rendered thronos in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is quite unwarranted.

Chapter XX.--The Festal Epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a Paschal Canon.

Dionysius, besides his epistles already mentioned, [2303] wrote at that time [2304] also his extant Festal Epistles, [2305] in which he uses words of panegyric respecting the passover feast. He addressed one of these to Flavius, [2306] and another to Domitius and Didymus, [2307] in which he sets forth a canon of eight years, [2308] maintaining that it is not proper to observe the paschal feast until after the vernal equinox. Besides these he sent another epistle to his fellow-presbyters in Alexandria, as well as various others to different persons while the persecution was still prevailing. [2309]

Footnotes

[2303] Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1, and see that note for references to the various passages in which Eusebius mentions or quotes from his epistles. [2304] Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in the time of Valerian or Gallienus; but he is mistaken, at least so far as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see above, chap. 11, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others also. [2305] tas pheromenas heortastikEURs. It was the custom for the bishops of Alexandria to write every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or homily, and in it to announce the time of the festival. These writings thus received the name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see Suicer's Thesaurus s.v. heortastikos, and Valesius' note ad locum). This is apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are referred to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius to various persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops during these centuries wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far as I am aware, except a number by Athanasius (extant only in a Syriac version, published in Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846 and 1848), a few by Theophilus (extant only in Latin), and thirty by Cyril (published in Migne's Patr. Gr. LXXVII. 391 sq.). [2306] Of this Flavius we know nothing. The epistle addressed to him is no longer extant. [2307] On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them, see above, chap. 11, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in that Chapter. [2308] That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c.) had not come into general use in the Church until later than this time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency, but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In fact, the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of Easter, so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of Laodicea (see below, chap. 32, �14). It was soon adopted in the Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had become the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from Athanasius' Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning of the date of Easter, and although an older and less accurate cycle remained in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle gradually won its way everywhere. See Ideler's great work on chronology, and cf. Hefele's Conciliengesch. 2d ed. 1. p. 332, and Lightfoot in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 313 sq. [2309] These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know the names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a part of them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake in connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not prove that he was in error in regard to all the others as well.

Chapter XXI.--The Occurrences at Alexandria.

1. Peace had but just been restored when he returned to Alexandria; [2310] but as sedition and war broke out again, rendering it impossible for him to oversee all the brethren, separated in different places by the insurrection, at the feast of the passover, as if he were still an exile from Alexandria, he addressed them again by letter. [2311] 2. And in another festal epistle written later to Hierax, [2312] a bishop in Egypt, he mentions the sedition then prevailing in Alexandria, as follows: "What wonder is it that it is difficult for me to communicate by letters with those who live far away, when it is beyond my power even to reason with myself, or to take counsel for my own life? 3. Truly I need to send letters to those who are as my own bowels, [2313] dwelling in one home, and brethren of one soul, and citizens of the same church; but how to send them I cannot tell. For it would be easier for one to go, not only beyond the limits of the province, but even from the East to the West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria itself. 4. For the very heart of the city is more intricate and impassable than that great and trackless desert which Israel traversed for two generations. And our smooth and waveless harbors have become like the sea, divided and walled up, through which Israel drove and in whose highway the Egyptians were overwhelmed. For often from the slaughters there committed they appear like the Red Sea. 5. And the river which flows by the city has sometimes seemed drier than the waterless desert, and more parched than that in which Israel, as they passed through it, so suffered for thirst, that they cried out against Moses, and the water flowed for them from the steep rock, [2314] through him who alone doeth wonders. 6. Again it has overflowed so greatly as to flood all the surrounding country, and the roads and the fields; threatening to bring back the deluge of water that occurred in the days of Noah. And it flows along, polluted always with blood and slaughter and drownings, as it became for Pharaoh through the agency of Moses, when he changed it into blood, and it stank. [2315] 7. And what other water could purify the water which purifies everything? How could the ocean, so great and impassable for men, if poured into it, cleanse this bitter sea? Or how could the great river which flowed out of Eden, if it poured the four heads into which it is divided into the one of Geon, [2316] wash away this pollution? 8. Or when can the air poisoned by these noxious exhalations become pure? For such vapors arise from the earth, and winds from the sea, and breezes from the river, and mists from the harbors, that the dews are, as it were, discharges from dead bodies putrefying in all the elements around us. 9. Yet men wonder and cannot understand whence these continuous pestilences; whence these severe sicknesses; whence these deadly diseases of all kinds; whence this various and vast human destruction; why this great city no longer contains as many inhabitants, from tender infants to those most advanced in life, as it formerly contained of those whom it called hearty old men. But the men from forty to seventy years of age were then so much more numerous that their number cannot now be filled out, even when those from fourteen to eighty years are enrolled and registered for the public allowance of food. 10. And the youngest in appearance have become, as it were, of equal age with those who formerly were the oldest. But though they see the race of men thus constantly diminishing and wasting away, and though their complete destruction is increasing and advancing, they do not tremble."

Footnotes

[2310] This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late in the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3). [2311] This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his scattered flock is no longer extant. [2312] Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here. [2313] cf. Philemon, vers. 12. [2314] ek petras akrotomou. The adjective is an addition of Dionysius' own. The LXX of Ex. xvii. 6 has only petra, "rock." [2315] epozesas; the same word which is used in the LXX of Ex. vii. 21. [2316] Geon; LXX (Gen. ii. 13), Geon; Heb. G+uiJ+X+�W+N%; A.V. and R.V., Gihon.

Chapter XXII.--The Pestilence which came upon them.

1. After these events a pestilential disease followed the war, and at the approach of the feast he wrote again to the brethren, describing the sufferings consequent upon this calamity. [2317] 2. "To other men [2318] the present might not seem to be a suitable time for a festival. Nor indeed is this or any other time suitable for them; neither sorrowful times, nor even such as might be thought especially cheerful. [2319] Now, indeed, everything is tears and every one is mourning, and wailings resound daily through the city because of the multitude of the dead and dying. 3. For as it was written of the firstborn of the Egyptians, so now `there has arisen a great cry, for there is not a house where there is not one dead.' [2320] And would that this were all! [2321] 4. For many terrible things have happened already. First, they drove us out; and when alone, and persecuted, and put to death by all, even then we kept the feast. And every place of affliction was to us a place of festival: field, desert, ship, inn, prison; but the perfected martyrs kept the most joyous festival of all, feasting in heaven. 5. After these things war and famine followed, which we endured in common with the heathen. But we bore alone those things with which they afflicted us, and at the same time we experienced also the effects of what they inflicted upon and suffered from one another; and again, we rejoiced in the peace of Christ, which he gave to us alone. 6. "But after both we and they had enjoyed a very brief season of rest this pestilence assailed us; to them more dreadful than any dread, and more intolerable than any other calamity; and, as one of their own writers has said, the only thing which prevails over all hope. But to us this was not so, but no less than the other things was it an exercise and probation. For it did not keep aloof even from us, but the heathen it assailed more severely." 7. Farther on he adds: "The most of our brethren were unsparing in their exceeding love and brotherly kindness. They held fast to each other and visited the sick fearlessly, and ministered to them continually, serving them in Christ. And they died with them most joyfully, taking the affliction of others, and drawing the sickness from their neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving their pains. And many who cared for the sick and gave strength to others died themselves having transferred to themselves their death. And the popular saying which always seems a mere expression of courtesy, they then made real in action, taking their departure as the others' `offscouring.' [2322] 8. "Truly the best of our brethren departed from life in this manner, including some presbyters and deacons and those of the people who had the highest reputation; so that this form of death, through the great piety and strong faith it exhibited, seemed to lack nothing of martyrdom. 9. And they took the bodies of the saints in their open hands and in their bosoms, and closed their eyes and their mouths; and they bore them away on their shoulders and laid them out; and they clung to them and embraced them; and they prepared them suitably with washings and garments. And after a little they received like treatment themselves, for the survivors were continually following those who had gone before them. 10. "But with the heathen everything was quite otherwise. They deserted those who began to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends. And they cast them out into the streets when they were half dead, and left the dead like refuse, unburied. They shunned any participation or fellowship with death; which yet, with all their precautions, it was not easy for them to escape." 11. After this epistle, when peace had been restored to the city, he wrote another festal letter [2323] to the brethren in Egypt, and again several others besides this. And there is also a certain one extant On the Sabbath, [2324] and another On Exercise. 12. Moreover, he wrote again an epistle to Hermammon [2325] and the brethren in Egypt, describing at length the wickedness of Decius and his successors, and mentioning the peace under Gallienus.

Footnotes

[2317] This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last Chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262), this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular festal epistle so-called, for in �11, below, we are told that Dionysius wrote a regular festal letter (heortastiken graphen) to the brethren in Egypt, and that apparently in connection with this same Easter of the year 263. [2318] i.e. to the heathen. [2319] i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice. [2320] Ex. xii. 30. [2321] kai ophelon ge, with the majority of the mss., followed by Valesius, Schwegler, and Heinichen. Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann, upon the authority of two mss., read kai ophelon ge heis ("and would that there were but one!"), a reading which Valesius approves in his notes. The weight of ms. authority, however, is with the former, and it alone justifies the gEURr of the following sentence. [2322] peripsema; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 13. Valesius suggests that this may have been a humble and complimentary form of salutation among the Alexandrians: ego eimi peripsemEUR sou (cf. our words, "Your humble servant"); or, as he thinks more probable, that the expression had come to be habitually applied to the Christians by the heathen. The former interpretation seems to me the only possible one in view of the words immediately preceding: "which always seems a mere expression of courtesy." Certainly these words rule out the second interpretation suggested by Valesius. [2323] The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with the letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not a whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore, look upon it as Dionysius' festal epistle of the year 263 (see above, note 1). Neither this nor the "several others" spoken of just below is now extant. [2324] This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they were addressed. [2325] On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above, chap. 1, note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that Chapter and also in chap. 10.

Chapter XXIII.--The Reign of Gallienus.

1. But there is nothing like hearing his own words, which are as follows: "Then he, [2326] having betrayed one of the emperors that preceded him, and made war on the other, [2327] perished with his whole family speedily and utterly. But Gallienus was proclaimed and universally acknowledged at once an old emperor and a new, being before them and continuing after them. 2. For according to the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah, `Behold the things from the beginning have come to pass, and new things shall now arise.' [2328] For as a cloud passing over the sun's rays and obscuring them for a little time hides it and appears in its place; but when the cloud has passed by or is dissipated, the sun which had risen before appears again; so Macrianus who put himself forward and approached the existing empire of Gallienus, is not, since he never was. But the other is just as he was. 3. And his kingdom, as if it had cast aside old age, and had been purified from the former wickedness, now blossoms out more vigorously, and is seen and heard farther, and extends in all directions." [2329] 4. He then indicates the time at which he wrote this in the following words: "It occurs to me again to review the days of the imperial years. For I perceive that those most impious men, though they have been famous, yet in a short time have become nameless. But the holier and more godly prince, [2330] having passed the seventh year, is now completing the ninth, [2331] in which we shall keep the feast."

Footnotes

[2326] i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5. [2327] He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the result which took place, and after Valerian's capture he made war upon Gallienus, the latter's son and successor. See the note referred to just above. [2328] Isa. xlii. 9. [2329] Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the favor shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the profane historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one of the darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account of the numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the internal disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure. [2330] Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and courage which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius' words at this point are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallienus upon the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in the minds of those who had suffered from the persecutions of his predecessors. [2331] The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of the seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplexity. Stroth thinks that "Dionysius speaks here of the time when Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for a year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country had been interrupted." The view of Pearson, however, seems to me better. He remarks: "Whoever expressed himself thus, that one after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This septennium (heptaeteris) must designate something peculiar and different from the time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of that empire [the father, Valerian being in captivity in Persia], Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honor especially in Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had still much authority in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. in 261, Macrianus, the father and the two sons being slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognized also among the Egyptians." "The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was written by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from that, and falls consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d." See also chap. 1, note 3, above.

Chapter XXIV.--Nepos and his Schism. [2332]

1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises [2333] were prepared by him. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. 2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. [2334] 3. Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John, and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner: 4. "But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that [2335] in many other respects I approve and love Nepos, for his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody, [2336] with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him in the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does not seem to have been written soundly. 5. Were he present to state his opinion orally, mere unwritten discussion, persuading and reconciling those who are opposed by question and answer, would be sufficient. But as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law and prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make promises [2337] as to the teaching of this work as if it were some great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord, and our resurrection from the dead, and our being gathered together unto him, and made like him, but on the contrary lead them to hope for small and mortal things in the kingdom of God, and for things such as exist now,--since this is the case, it is necessary that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present." Farther on he says: 6. "When I was in the district of Arsino�, [2338] where, as you know, this doctrine has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages,--such brethren as wished being also present,--and I exhorted them to make a public examination of this question. 7. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it. 8. And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures. 9. And finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, [2339] in the hearing of all the brethren that were present, acknowledged and testified to us that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it. And some of the other brethren expressed their gratification at the conference, and at the spirit of conciliation and harmony which all had manifested."

Footnotes

[2332] Of this Egyptian bishop Nepos, we know only what is told us in this Chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although chiliasm had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology of the third century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain its sway in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts in the East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of thought, and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it was looked upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity,--they lived as most Christians of the second century had, in the constant hope of a speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth. The gradual exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief involved the same kind of consequences as the disappearance of the belief in the continued possession by the Church of the spirit of prophecy (see Bk. V. chap. 16, note 1), and marks another step in the progress of the Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of the first and second, to the more formal spirit of the third and following centuries. Compare the remarks of Harnack in his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 482 sq. It seems, from �6, below, that Dionysius had engaged in an oral discussion of the doctrines taught in the book of Nepos, which had prevailed for a long time in Arsino�, where the disputation was held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties in the discussion, and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius. He was evidently afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which was widely circulated, would still continue to do damage, and therefore he undertook to refute it in a work of his own, entitled On the Promises (see the next note). His work, like his disputation, undoubtedly had considerable effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in some of the outlying districts of Egypt for a number of generations. [2333] peri epangelion. This work, as we learn from �3, below, contained in the first book Dionysius' own views on the subject under dispute, in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse upon which Nepos based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no longer extant, though Eusebius gives extracts from the second book in this and in the next Chapter; and three brief fragments have been preserved in a Vatican ms., and are published in the various editions of Dionysius' works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81-84. We have no means of ascertaining the date of Dionysius work. Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put the disputation at Arsino�, in 254 or 255, and the composition of the work of Dionysius of course soon thereafter; but we have no authority for fixing the date of the disputation with such exactness, and must be content to leave it quite undetermined, though it is not improbable that it took place, as Dittrich maintains, between the persecutions of Decius and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth book of his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius, On the Promises (evidently referring to this same work), directed against Iren�us. In his de vir ill. 69, however, he follows Eusebius in stating that the work was written against Nepos. There can be no doubt on this score, and Jerome's statement in his commentary seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however, that Iren�us, as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic views, may have been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work, and thus Jerome have had some justification for his report. [2334] Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical interpreters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions deduced by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and allegorizing its language. This work of Nepos has entirely perished. [2335] The words "I confess that" are not in the original, but the insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete the sentence. [2336] On early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 14. [2337] "i.e. dire ante promittunt quam tradunt. The metaphor is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them on the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their judgment and reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian says in his book Against the Valentinians [chap. 1]." Valesius. [2338] en to 'Arsinoeite. The Arsinoite nome or district (on the nomes of Egypt, see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated on the western bank of the Nile, between the river and Lake Moeris, southwest of Memphis. [2339] Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.

Chapter XXV.--The Apocalypse of John. [2340]

1. Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John. "Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it Chapter by Chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. 2. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. 3. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace. [2341] 4. "But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words. 5. I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more to faith I regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it." 6. After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows: "Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For he says, `Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.' [2342] 7. Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle [2343] were written. 8. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, [2344] that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle." 9. Farther on he adds: "But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person. [2345] But the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning: `The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things that he saw.' [2346] 10. Then he writes also an epistle: `John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be with you, and peace.' [2347] But the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle; but without introduction he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself: `That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.' [2348] For because of such a revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, `Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly Father.' [2349] 11. But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, `the elder.' [2350] But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: `I