Book 7

Book VII.


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.

[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.

[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]

[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, S: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]

[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

[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 litterae, 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 Caesarea, Mazabanes in AElia, 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

[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
Cruse, immediately after the words ”Mazabanes in AElia.” 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 (S: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, S:1), to Dionysius of Rome (ibid. S:6), to Xystus
of Rome (chap. 9, S:1), and to Xystus and the church of Rome (ibid.

[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, S: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.”

[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, Haer. 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:

[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 Haensel 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

[2189] pEURpa. According to Suicer (Thesaurus) all bishops in the
Occident as late as the fifth century were called Papae 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, S:S: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]

[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,
S: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
aeternam 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.

[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 S: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

[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

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.

[2210] hoi amphi ton GEURllon. Eusebius is undoubtedly referring to
Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent, and AEmilian, his enemy and
successor. Gallus himself, with his son Volusian, whom he made Caesar
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 AEmilian,
and he and his son were slain. AEmilian 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 summae 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 Praetorian 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, Cruse, 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 AEmilianus; [2230] but my fellow-presbyter,
Maximus, [2231] and the deacons Faustus, [2232] Eusebius, [2233] and
Chaeremon, [2234] and a brother who was present from Rome, went with

4. But AEmilianus 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
Chaeremon being arraigned, AEmilianus 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. AEmilianus, 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.’ AEmilianus, 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
AEmilianus, 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 AEmilianus? 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 Paraetonium.” [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 Chaeremon, [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.

[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

[2229] Tob. xii. 7.

[2230] This AEmilianus, 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] Chaeremon is mentioned three times in the present chapter, but
we have no other reliable information in regard to him.

[2235] We may gather from S: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

[2236] Acts v. 29.

[2237] We learn from S: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 S:3, above, is an
otherwise unknown person.

[2239] ton para phusin. That the ton refers to ”gods” (viz. the gods of
the Christians, AEmilianus thinking of them as plural) seems clear,
both on account of the theous just preceding, and also in view of the
fact that in S: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
AEmilian 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

[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, S:14 sq., expressly speaks of a number of
church buildings in Alexandria.

[2250] Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, S:2,
from which passage we may gather that he held the same position under
Decius which AEmilianus 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 S:22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40, S: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 S: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. S:6 sq.

[2255] Paraetonium 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 Paraetonium, 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, S: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, S: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 Caesarea in Palestine.

During the above-mentioned persecution under Valerian, three men in
Caesarea 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 Caesarea, 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.

[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 Caesar 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]

[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’

[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
Goerres, Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus, in the Jahrb. fuer
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, S: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

[2275] ho tou megistou prEURgmatos prostateuon. Heinichen, following
Valesius, identifies this office with the ho epi ton katholou logon
(mentioned in chap. 10, S:5), with the ho ton katholou logon zparchos
(mentioned in Bk. IX. chap. 11, S: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

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 Caesarea 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 Caesarea 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] Hymenaeus, [2287] who has been celebrated among us
for a great many years, succeeded to his seat.

[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-Caesarea 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, Hymenaeus 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
Hymenaeus 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

Chapter XV.–The Martyrdom of Marinus at Caesarea.

1. At this time, when the peace of the churches had been everywhere
[2288] restored, Marinus in Caesarea 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 Achaeus, [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

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

[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 Goerres in the Jahrbuecher fuer 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] Achaeus 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.

[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

[2293] Burton and Cruse 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 Caesarea 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.

[2294] Caesarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Caesarea, 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 Caesarea 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

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

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

[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

[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 Nicaea, 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.

[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.). Cruse 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]

[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

[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,
S: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

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

[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.,

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

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

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.

[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 S: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

[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

[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

”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

”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.”

[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 Arsinoe, [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

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

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.”

[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 S: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 Arsinoe, 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

[2333] peri epangelion. This work, as we learn from S: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 Arsinoe, 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 Irenaeus. 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 Irenaeus, 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

[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.’

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, John, who also am your brother and
companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of
Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the Word of God
and the testimony of Jesus.’ [2351] And toward the close he speaks
thus: `Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this
book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.’ [2352]

12. ”But that he who wrote these things was called John must be
believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did not
say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the
Lord, [2353] or the one who lay on his breast, [2354] or the brother of
James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord.

13. For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show
himself plainly. But he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our
brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he
had seen and heard the revelations.

14. But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as
the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because
they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as
he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of
the faithful are called Paul or Peter.

15. For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned
in the Acts of the Apostles, [2355] whom Barnabas and Paul took with
them; of whom also it is said, `And they had also John as their
attendant.’ [2356] But that it is he who wrote this, I would not say.
For it not written that he went with them into Asia, but, `Now when
Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in
Pamphylia and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.’ [2357]

16. But I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they
say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of
John. [2358]

17. ”And from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it
may be reasonably conjectured that this one is different from that one.

18. For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the
same manner. The one says, `In the beginning was the Word’; [2360] the
other, `That which was from the beginning.’ [2361] The one: `And the
Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father’; [2362] the other says the
same things slightly altered: `Which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes; which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of
the Word of life,–and the life was manifested.’ [2363]

19. For he introduces these things at the beginning, maintaining them,
as is evident from what follows, in opposition to those who said that
the Lord had not come in the flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds,
`And we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the eternal
life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. That which
we have seen and heard declare we unto you also.’ [2364]

20. He holds to this and does not digress from his subject, but
discusses everything under the same heads and names some of which we
will briefly mention.

21. Any one who examines carefully will find the phrases, `the life,’
`the light,’ `turning from darkness,’ frequently occurring in both;
also continually, `truth,’ `grace,’ `joy,’ `the flesh and blood of the
Lord,’ `the judgment,’ `the forgiveness of sins,’ `the love of God
toward us,’ the `commandment that we love one another,’ that we should
`keep all the commandments’; the `conviction of the world, of the
Devil, of Anti-Christ,’ the `promise of the Holy Spirit,’ the `adoption
of God,’ the `faith continually required of us,’ `the Father and the
Son,’ occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and
the same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout.

22. But the Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to
them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to
speak, without even a syllable in common with them.

23. Nay more, the Epistle–for I pass by the Gospel–does not mention
nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the
Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some
indication of his revelations, [2365] though he has not written them
out by themselves.

24. ”Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and
Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse.

25. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek
language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their
reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from
betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the
writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse,–that is,
the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression,–as the Lord had
bestowed them both upon him.

26. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received
knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and
language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms,
and, in some places, solecisms.

27. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any
one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I
have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the
difference between the writings.”

[2340] Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon
Dionysius’ treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.

[2341] A portion of this extract (S:S:2 and 3) has been already quoted
by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.

[2342] Rev. xxii. 7, 8. Dionysius punctuates this passage peculiarly,
and thus interprets it quite differently from all our versions of the
Book of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with our
received text of the Apocalypse; but the words kago ‘IoEURnnes ho
akouon kai blepon tauta, which Dionysius connects with the preceding,
should form an independent sentence: ”And I, John, am he that heard and
saw these things.”

[2343] On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and

[2344] tes tou bibliou diexagoges legomenes. Valesius considers
diexagoge equivalent to dispositionem or oikonomian, ”for diexagogein
is the same as dioikein, as Suidas says.” He translates ex libelli
totius ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be
interpreted also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The
phrase evidently means the ”general disposition” or ”form” of the work.
Closs translates ”aus ihrer ganzen Ausfuehrung”; Salmond, ”the whole
disposition and execution of the book”; Cruse, ”the execution of the
whole book.”

[2345] i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as ”I, John”;
nor in the third person, as e.g. ”his servant, John.”

[2346] Rev. i. 1, 2.

[2347] Rev. i. 4.

[2348] 1 John i. 1.

[2349] Matt. xvi. 17.

[2350] See 2 John, ver. 1, and 3 John, ver. 1.

[2351] Rev. i. 9.

[2352] Rev. xxii. 7, 8. See above, note 3.

[2353] See John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20.

[2354] See John xiii. 23, 25. These words, oude ton anapesonta epi to
stethos autou, are wanting in Heinichen’s edition; but as they are
found in all the other editions and versions and Heinichen gives no
reason for their omission, it is clear that they have been omitted

[2355] In Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5, 13; xv. 37. On Mark and the second
Gospel, see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

[2356] Acts xiii. 5.

[2357] Acts xiii. 13.

[2358] See above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the ”presbyter
John,” mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter, and on
his relation to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note 14.

[2359] i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer
of the Gospel and Epistles.

[2360] John i. 1.

[2361] 1 John i. 1.

[2362] John i. 14.

[2363] 1 John i. 1, 2.

[2364] 1 John i. 2, 3.

[2365] See 2 Cor. xii. 1 sq., Gal. ii. 2.

Chapter XXVI.–The Epistles of Dionysius.

1. Besides these, many other epistles of Dionysius are extant, as those
against Sabellius, [2366] addressed to Ammon, [2367] bishop of the
church of Bernice, and one to Telesphorus, [2368] and one to Euphranor,
and again another to Ammon and Euporus. He wrote also four other books
on the same subject, which he addressed to his namesake Dionysius, in
Rome. [2369]

2. Besides these many of his epistles are with us, and large books
written in epistolary form, as those on Nature, [2370] addressed to the
young man Timothy, and one on Temptations, [2371] which he also
dedicated to Euphranor.

3. Moreover, in a letter to Basilides, [2372] bishop of the parishes in
Pentapolis, he says that he had written an exposition of the beginning
of Ecclesiastes. [2373] And he has left us also various letters
addressed to this same person. Thus much Dionysius.

But our account of these matters being now completed, permit us to show
to posterity the character of our own age. [2374]

[2366] On Sabellius, and on Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism,
see above, chap. 6, note 1.

[2367] The works addressed to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and
Euporus, are no longer extant, nor do we know anything about them (but
see chap. 6, note 2, above). It is possible that it was in these
epistles that Dionysius laid himself open in his zeal against the
Sabellians to the charge of tritheism, which aroused complaints against
him, and resulted in his being obliged to defend himself in his work
addressed to Dionysius of Rome. If so, these letters must have been
written before that work, though perhaps not long before. Of Ammon
himself we know nothing. There were a number of cities in North Africa,
called Berenice (the form Bernice is exceptional), but, according to
Wiltsch, Berenice, a city of Libya Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica, is meant
in the present case. This city (whose original name was Hesperides) lay
on the Mediterranean some six hundred miles west of Alexandria.

[2368] Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know nothing.

[2369] On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below, p.

[2370] hoi peri phuseos. The date and immediate occasion of this work
cannot be determined. The supposition of Dittrich, that it was written
before Dionysius became bishop, while he had more leisure than
afterward for philosophical study, has much in its favor. The young
man, Timothy, to whom it was addressed, is perhaps to be identified
with the one mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, S:4. That it was a work of
considerable extent, embracing more than one book, is indicated by
Eusebius in this passage. A long extract from it is given by Eusebius
in his Praep. Evang. XIV. 23-27 (printed with commentary by Routh, Rel.
Sac. IV. p. 393 sq.; translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p.
84-91), and a few fragments are still preserved in a Vatican codex, and
have been published by Simon de Magistris, in his edition of Dionysius’
works (Rome, 1796), p. 44 sq. (cf. also Routh, IV. p. 418, 419). In the
extract quoted by Eusebius, Dionysius deals solely with the atomic
theory of Democritus and Epicurus. This subject may have occupied the
greater part of the work, but evidently, as Dittrich remarks (Dionysius
der Grosse, p. 12), the doctrines of other physicists were also dealt
with (cf. the words with which Eusebius introduces his extracts; Praep.
Evang. XIV. 22. 10: ”I will subjoin from the books [of Dionysius] On
Nature a few of the things urged against Epicurus.” The translation in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84, note 7, which implies that the
work was written ”against the Epicureans” is not correct). phusis seems
to have been taken by Dionysius in the sense of the ”Universe”
(compare, for instance, the words of Cicero, De nat. deorum, II., to
which Dittrich refers: Sunt autem, qui naturae nomine rerum
universitatem intelligunt), and to have been devoted to a refutation of
the doctrines of various heathen philosophers in regard to the origin
of the universe. For a fuller discussion of the work, see Dittrich,
ibid. p. 12 sq.

[2371] This work on Temptations (peri peirasmon) is no longer extant,
nor do we know anything about the time or occasion of its composition.
Dittrich strangely omits all reference to it. Of Euphranor, as remarked
in note 3, we know nothing.

[2372] Of this Basilides we know only what Eusebius tells us here, that
he was bishop of the ”parishes in Pentapolis” (or Cyrenaica, a
district, and under the Romans a province, lying west of Egypt, along
the Mediterranean Sea), which would seem to imply that he was
metropolitan of that district (cf. Routh, Rel. Sac. III. p. 235). A
canonical epistle addressed to him by Dionysius is still extant (see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Eusebius tells us that Dionysius
addressed ”various epistles” to him, but no others are known to us.

[2373] It is possible that this work also, like that On Nature, was
written, as Dittrich thinks, before Dionysius became bishop. Eusebius
evidently had not seen the commentary himself, for he speaks only of
Dionysius’ reference to it. A few fragments, supposed to be parts of
this commentary, were published in the appendix to the fourteenth
volume of Galland’s Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum, after the latter’s
death, and were afterward reprinted in De Magistris’ edition of
Dionysius’ works, p. 1 sq. (English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 111-114). The fragments, or at least a part of them,
are ascribed to Dionysius in the codex in which they are found, and are
very likely genuine, though we cannot speak with certainty. For fuller
particulars, see Dittrich, p. 22 sq.

[2374] ten kath’ hemas geneEURn. This seems to indicate that the events
recorded by Eusebius from this point on took place during his own
lifetime. See above, p. 4.

Chapter XXVII.–Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy introduced by him at

1. After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for eleven years,
[2375] Dionysius, [2376] namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him.
About the same time Demetrianus [2377] died in Antioch, and Paul of
Samosata [2378] received that episcopate.

2. As he held, contrary to the teaching of the Church, low and degraded
views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he was a common man,
Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod. [2379] But
being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave
his opinion on the subject under consideration by letter. [2380] But
all the other pastors of the churches from all directions, made haste
to assemble at Antioch, as against a despoiler of the flock of Christ.

[2375] Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years. See
chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius’ chronology of the Roman bishops of this time
is in inextricable confusion.

[2376] After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome remained
vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution of
Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, according to
the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the correct date.
Jerome’s version of the Chron. gives the twelfth year of ”Valerian and
Gallienus” (i.e. 265-266) which is wide of the mark. The Armenian
Chron. gives the eighth year of the same reign. As to the duration of
his episcopate, authorities vary considerably. Eusebius (chap. 30,
S:23, below) and Jerome’s version of the Chron. say nine years; the
Armenian Chron., twelve; the Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows
that nine is the correct figure, and that five months and two days are
to be read instead of the two months and four days of the Liberian
catalogue. According to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27,
268. Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the
latter was still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see
above, chap. 7, S:6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a ”learned
and capable man”). Another epistle of the same writer addressed to him
is mentioned in chap. 9, S:6. Dionysius of Alexandria’s four books
against the Sabellians were likewise addressed to him (see chap. 26,
above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Gallienus’ edict of toleration
was promulgated while Dionysius was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3).

[2377] On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

[2378] Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the
early Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time viceroy of
Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius’ Chron. put the
date of his accession to the see of Antioch in the seventh year of
Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277 (2278), i.e. in a.d. 259
(260); and Jerome’s version puts his deposition in the year of Abr.
2283, i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however, are not to be relied upon.
Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51) shows that he became bishop between
257 and 260. Our chief knowledge of his character and career is derived
from the encyclical letter written by the members of the council which
condemned him, and quoted in part by Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This,
as will be seen, paints his character in very black colors. It may be
somewhat overdrawn, for it was written by his enemies; at the same
time, such an official communication can hardly have falsified the
facts to any great extent. We may rely then upon its general
truthfulness. Paul reproduced the heresy of Artemon (see above, Bk. V.
chap. 28), teaching that Christ was a mere man, though he was filled
with divine power, and that from his birth, not merely from his
baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He admitted, too, the generation by
the Holy Spirit. ”He denied the personality of the Logos and of the
Holy Spirit, and considered them merely powers of God, like reason and
mind in man; but granted that the Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger
measure than in any former messenger of God, and taught, like the
Socinians in later times, a gradual elevation of Christ, determined by
his own moral development, to divine dignity. He admitted that Christ
remained free from sin, conquered the sin of our forefathers, and then
became the Saviour of the race” (Schaff). At various Antiochian synods
(the exact number of them we do not know), efforts were made to procure
his condemnation, but they were not successful. Finally one of the
synods condemned and excommunicated him, and Domnus was appointed
bishop in his place. The date of this synod is ordinarily fixed at 268
or 269, but it cannot have occurred in 269, and probably occurred
earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note 1). Since Paul was in favor
with Zenobia, his deposition could not be effected until 272, when
Aurelian conquered her. Being appealed to by the Church, Aurelian left
the decision between the claims of Paul and Domnus to the bishops of
Rome and Italy, who decided at once for Domnus, and Paul was therefore
deposed and driven out in disgrace. Our sources for a knowledge of Paul
and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a number of fragments
from the acts of the council, given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.;
and scattered notices in the Fathers of the fourth century, especially
Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, &c. Cf. also Jerome’s de vir.
ill. 71, and Epiphanius’ Haer. 65. See Harnack’s article
Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in Schaff-Herzog);
also Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata.

[2379] This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last one,
at which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at which his
case was considered. It is not probable that the synod was called
especially to consider his case, but that at two or more of the regular
annual synods of Antioch the subject was discussed without result,
until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Harnack, ibid. p. 52, and
Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions the fact that he was invited
to attend this synod in an epistle addressed to Cornelius, according to
Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46.

[2380] Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a few
days before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from
Eusebius’ statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer extant,
although a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical of the
Antiochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, S:4), and hence must have
been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An epistle
purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata is
given by Labbe, Concil. I. 850-893, but it is not authentic.

Chapter XXVIII.–The Illustrious Bishops of that Time.

1. Of these, the most eminent were Firmilianus, [2381] bishop of
Caesarea in Cappadocia; the brothers Gregory [2382] and Athenodorus,
pastors of the churches in Pontus; Helenus [2383] of the parish of
Tarsus, and Nicomas [2384] of Iconium; moreover, Hymenaeus, [2385] of
the church of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus [2386] of the neighboring
church of Caesarea; and besides these Maximus, [2387] who presided in a
distinguished manner over the brethren in Bostra. If any should count
them up he could not fail to note a great many others, besides
presbyters and deacons, who were at that time assembled for the same
cause in the above-mentioned city. [2388] But these were the most

2. When all of these assembled at different times and frequently to
consider these matters, the arguments and questions were discussed at
every meeting; the adherents of the Samosatian endeavoring to cover and
conceal his heterodoxy, and the others striving zealously to lay bare
and make manifest his heresy and blasphemy against Christ.

3. Meanwhile, Dionysius died in the twelfth year of the reign of
Gallienus, [2389] having held the episcopate of Alexandria for
seventeen years, and Maximus [2390] succeeded him.

4. Gallienus after a reign of fifteen years [2391] was succeeded by
Claudius, [2392] who in two years delivered the government to Aurelian.

[2381] On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

[2382] Gregory Thaumaturgus. On him and his brother, Athenodorus, see
Bk. VI. chap. 30, notes 1 and 2.

[2383] On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. He presided at the
final council which deposed Paul of Samosata, according to the Libellus
Synodicus (see Labbe, Concilia, I. 893, 901), and this is confirmed by
the fact that in the encyclical epistle written by this synod his name
stands first (see chap. 30).

[2384] Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know nothing. An
earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is mentioned in Book VI.
chap. 19, above.

[2385] On Hymenaeus, see chap. 14, note 11.

[2386] On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.

[2387] Of Maximus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, we know nothing. On
Beryllus, an earlier and more celebrated bishop of the same city, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 33.

[2388] i.e. Antioch.

[2389] In both versions of the Chron. the death of Dionysius is put in
the eleventh year of Gallienus, i.e. August, 263, to August, 264, and
this, or the date given here by Eusebius (the twelfth year, August,
264, to August, 265) is undoubtedly correct. Upon the dates of his
accession and death, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

[2390] Maximus had been a presbyter while Dionysius was bishop of
Alexandria, and had shared with him the hardships of the Decian and
Valerian persecutions (see above, chap. 11). In chap. 32, he is said to
have held office eighteen years, and with this both versions of the
Chron. agree, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the

[2391] Eusebius here, as in his Chron., reckons the reign of Gallienus
as beginning with the date of his association with his father in the
supreme power; i.e. August, 253.

[2392] Claudius became emperor in March, 268, and died of an epidemic
in Sirmium some time in the year 270, when he was succeeded by
Aurelian, whom he had himself appointed his successor just before his
death. It is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses the
somewhat peculiar phrase, metadidosi ten hegemonian

Chapter XXIX.–Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from
the Sophists, was excommunicated.

1. During his reign a final synod [2393] composed of a great many
bishops was held, and the leader of heresy [2394] in Antioch was
detected, and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was
excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven. [2395] [2396]

2. Malchion especially drew him out of his hiding-place and refuted
him. He was a man learned in other respects, and principal of the
sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the
superior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter
of that parish. This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which
was taken down by stenographers and which we know is still extant, was
alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived the others.

[2393] Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian (270-275),
and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of the Brucheium
which, according to his Chron., took place in 272. The epistle written
at this council (and given in the next chapter) is addressed to
Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of Rome, so that
the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council was held as late
as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned to the year 269,
and Dionysius’ death to December of the same year; but Lipsius has
shown (ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod which Eusebius mentions here
was held in all probability as early as 265 (but not earlier than 264,
because Dionysius of Alexandria was not succeeded by Maximus until that
year), certainly not later than 268, and hence it is not necessary to
extend the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome beyond 268, the date which
he has shown to be most probable (see chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then
is entirely mistaken in putting the council into the reign of Aurelian.

[2394] i.e. Paul of Samosata.

[2395] Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul that an
account of him is given by Jerome in his de vir. ill. 71. He tells us,
however, nothing new about him, except that he was the author of an
epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring probably to
the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do not know upon
what authority he bases this statement; in fact knowing the character
of his work, we shall probably be safe in assuming that the statement
is no more than a guess on his part. There is nothing improbable in the
report, but we must remember that Jerome is our only authority for it,
and he is in such a case very poor authority (nevertheless, in
Fremantle’s articles, Malchion, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., the
report is repeated as a fact). Both Eusebius and Jerome tell us that
the report of his discussion with Paul was extant in their day, and a
few fragments of it have been preserved, and are given by Leontius (de
Sectis, III. p. 504, according to Fremantle).

[2396] tes hupo ton ouranon katholikes ekklesias, i.e., ”from the
entire Catholic Church.” The phrase is usually strengthened by a pas,
as in the next chapter, S: 2. On the use of the phrase, ”Catholic
Church,” see Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 6.

Chapter XXX.–The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul.

1. The pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common
consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, [2397] bishop of Rome, and
Maximus [2398] of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces. In this
they make manifest to all their own zeal and the perverse error of
Paul, and the arguments and discussions which they had with him, and
show the entire life and conduct of the man. It may be well to put on
record at the present time the following extracts from their writing:

2. ”To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers
throughout the world, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and to the
whole Catholic Church under heaven, [2399] Helenus, [2400] Hymenaeus,
Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, AElianus, Paul,
Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, [2401] Malchion, and
Lucius, and all the others who dwell with us in the neighboring cities
and nations, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God,
greeting to the beloved brethren in the Lord.”

3. A little farther on they proceed thus: ”We sent for and called many
of the bishops from a distance to relieve us from this deadly doctrine;
as Dionysius of Alexandria [2402] and Firmilianus [2403] of Cappadocia,
those blessed men. The first of these not considering the author of
this delusion worthy to be addressed, sent a letter to Antioch, [2404]
not written to him, but to the entire parish, of which we give a copy

4. But Firmilianus came twice [2405] and condemned his innovations, as
we who were present know and testify, and many others understand. But
as he promised to change his opinions, he believed him and hoped that
without any reproach to the Word what was necessary would be done. So
he delayed the matter, being deceived by him who denied even his own
God and Lord, [2406] and had not kept the faith which he formerly held.

5. And now Firmilianus was again on his way to Antioch, and had come as
far as Tarsus because he had learned by experience his God-denying
wickedness. But while we, having come together, were calling for him
and awaiting his arrival, he died.” [2407]

6. After other things they describe as follows the manner of life which
he [2408] led:

7. ”Whereas he has departed from the rule of faith, [2409] and has
turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not
necessary,–since he is without,–that we should pass judgment upon his
practices: as for instance in that although formerly destitute and
poor, and having received no wealth from his fathers, nor made anything
by trade or business, he now possesses abundant wealth through his
iniquities and sacrilegious acts, and through those things which he
extorts from the brethren, [2410] depriving the injured of their rights
and promising to assist them for reward, yet deceiving them, and
plundering those who in their trouble are ready to give that they may
obtain reconciliation with their oppressors, `supposing that gain is
godliness’; [2411] —

8. or in that he is haughty, and is puffed up, and assumes worldly
dignities, preferring to be called ducenarius [2412] rather than
bishop; and struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting
them as he walks in public, attended by a body-guard, with a multitude
preceding and following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on
account of his pride and haughtiness of heart;–

9. or in that he practices chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies,
contrives to glorify himself, and deceive with appearances, and
astonish the minds of the simple, preparing for himself a tribunal and
lofty throne, [2413] –not like a disciple of Christ,–and possessing a
`secretum,’ [2414] –like the rulers of the world,–and so calling it,
and striking his thigh with his hand, and stamping on the tribunal with
his feet;–or in that he rebukes and insults those who do not applaud,
and shake their handkerchiefs as in the theaters, and shout and leap
about like the men and women that are stationed around him, and hear
him in this unbecoming manner, but who listen reverently and orderly as
in the house of God;–or in that he violently and coarsely assails in
public the expounders of the Word that have departed this life, and
magnifies himself, not as a bishop, but as a sophist and juggler,

10. and stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ, as being the modern
productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself
in the midst of the church on the great day of the passover, which any
one might shudder to hear, and persuades the bishops and presbyters of
the neighboring districts and cities who fawn upon him, to advance the
same ideas in their discourses to the people.

11. For to anticipate something of what we shall presently write, he is
unwilling to acknowledge that the Son of God has come down from heaven.
And this is not a mere assertion, but it is abundantly proved from the
records which we have sent you; and not least where he says `Jesus
Christ is from below.’ [2415] But those singing to him and extolling
him among the people say that their impious teacher has come down an
angel from heaven. [2416] And he does not forbid such things; but the
arrogant man is even present when they are uttered.

12. And there are the women, the `subintroductae,’ [2417] as the people
of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and
deacons that are with him. Although he knows and has convicted these
men, yet he connives at this and their other incurable sins, in order
that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not
dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds. [2418] But he has
also made them rich; on which account he is loved and admired by those
who covet such things.

13. We know, beloved, that the bishop and all the clergy should be an
example to the people of all good works. And we are not ignorant how
many have fallen or incurred suspicion, through the women whom they
have thus brought in. So that even if we should allow that he commits
no sinful act, yet he ought to avoid the suspicion which arises from
such a thing, lest he scandalize some one, or lead others to imitate

14. For how can he reprove or admonish another not to be too familiar
with women,–lest he fall, as it is written, [2419] –when he has
himself sent one away already, and now has two with him, blooming and
beautiful, and takes them with him wherever he goes, and at the same
time lives in luxury and surfeiting?

15. Because of these things all mourn and lament by themselves; but
they so fear his tyranny and power, that they dare not accuse him.

16. But as we have said, while one might call the man to account for
this conduct, if he held the Catholic doctrine and was numbered with
us, [2420] since he has scorned the mystery and struts about in the
abominable heresy of Artemas [2421] (for why should we not mention his
father?), we think it unnecessary to demand of him an explanation of
these things.”

17. Afterwards, at the close of the epistle, they add these words:

”Therefore we have been compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets
himself against God, and refuses to obey; and to appoint in his place
another bishop for the Catholic Church. By divine direction, as we
believe, we have appointed Domnus, [2422] who is adorned with all the
qualities becoming in a bishop, and who is a son of the blessed
Demetrianus, [2423] who formerly presided in a distinguished manner
over the same parish. We have informed you of this that you may write
to him, and may receive letters of communion [2424] from him. But let
this man write to Artemas; and let those who think as Artemas does,
communicate with him.” [2425]

18. As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the
orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, became bishop of the church
at Antioch.

19. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor
Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the matter most equitably,
ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy
and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. [2426] Thus this man was
driven out of the church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.

20. Such was Aurelian’s treatment of us at that time; but in the course
of his reign he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by
certain advisers to institute a persecution against us. [2427] And
there was great talk about this on every side.

21. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act
of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment came upon him
and restrained him at the very verge [2428] of his undertaking, showing
in a manner that all could see clearly, that the rulers of this world
can never find an opportunity against the churches of Christ, except
the hand that defends them permits it, in divine and heavenly judgment,
for the sake of discipline and correction, at such times as it sees

22. After a reign of six years, [2429] Aurelian was succeeded by
Probus. He reigned for the same number of years, and Carus, with his
sons, Carinus and Numerianus, succeeded him. After they had reigned
less than three years the government devolved on Diocletian, and those
associated with him. [2430] Under them took place the persecution of
our time, and the destruction of the churches connected with it.

23. Shortly before this, Dionysius, [2431] bishop of Rome, after
holding office for nine years, died, and was succeeded by Felix. [2432]

[2397] On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

[2398] On Maximus of Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10.

[2399] This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by
the addition of pas.

[2400] On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenaeus and
Theotecnus see above chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is possibly the
bishop addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in chap. 21.
Malchion is mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maximus of Bostra and
Nicomas of Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished bishops. Of the
others we know nothing.

[2401] It has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory
Thaumaturgus, who was also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap. 30);
but this is extremely improbable for everywhere else in referring to
him as bishop, Eusebius calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks of
him as one of the most celebrated bishops, and puts him near the head
of the list. Here Theodorus is placed near the end of the list, and no
prominence is given him. There is in fact no reason to identify the
two. The name Theodorus was a very common one.

[2402] See chap. 27.

[2403] On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

[2404] On this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this
passage, the epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself,
but to the council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle
given by Labbe, even were the latter authentic.

[2405] It is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata
had been discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one
which deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage
shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not
merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but
also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform
his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply
that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred
to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI.
chap. 26, note 3.

[2406] The words ”and Lord” are wanting in some good mss. as well as in
Rufinus, and are consequently omitted by Schwegler and Heinichen. But I
have preferred to follow the majority of the mss. and all the other
editors in retaining the words which are really necessary to the sense;
for it is not meant that Paul denied God, but that he denied his God
and Lord Jesus Christ; namely, by rejecting his essential deity.

[2407] On the date of Firmilian’s death, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3,

[2408] i.e. Paul of Samosata.

[2409] tou kanonos.

[2410] I follow Heinichen in reading hon zti ekseiei tous adelphous,
which is supported by five important mss. (cf. Heinichen’s note in
loco). The majority of the editors read hon aitei kai seiei k.t.l.,
which, however, is not so well supported by ms. authority. Laemmer, on
the authority of a single codex, reads hon zti kai seiei, and still
other variations occur in some mss.

[2411] 1 Tim. vi. 5.

[2412] Paul was the ”Procurator Ducenarius” of Zenobia, the queen of
Palmyra, an official so-called because his salary was 200 sestertia.
”The Ducenarius was an imperial procurator, so-called from his salary
of 200 sesteria, or 1600 pounds a year. Some critics suppose that the
bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office from Zenobia”
(Gibbon). There seems to be no reason to doubt that Paul held such a
position under Zenobia, which appears to be the implication of the
words here, and so he is commonly spoken of as a high official, even as
”Viceroy” of Zenobia. We know from Athanasius (Hist. Ar. S:71, Oxf. ed.
Chap. VIII. S:10), that he was a great favorite with Zenobia, and that
to her he owed the privilege of retaining his bishopric after the synod
had deposed him. This friendship shown toward him by Zenobia, who was
of the strictest manners, is much in his favor, and almost tempts us to
doubt the terrible character given him in this epistle by the members
of the synod. There must have been some palliating circumstances in the
case. He can hardly have been as unqualifiedly bad as this letter
paints him.

[2413] Valesius says, ”The Fathers do not here condemn Paul because he
had a throne; …but because he erected a tribunal for himself in the
church and placed upon that a high throne. Rufinus, therefore,
translates this passage correctly: In ecclesia vero tribunal sibi multo
altius quam fuerat exstrui, et thronum in excelsioribus collocari
jubet. Bishops did sit on a seat a little higher than the rest of the
presbyters, but they did not have a tribunal.” This has been frequently
quoted, and is on the whole a true statement of facts. But the Greek is
bema men kai thronon hupselon, and Rufinus is certainly wrong in
putting his multo altius with the tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek
reads, is upon the bema as such, not upon the height of it, while the
thronos is condemned because of its height. The translation of Rufinus
shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand that a
bema should be objected to as such.

[2414] Greek sekreton, for the Latin secretum, which was the name of
the place where the civil magistrates and higher judges sat to decide
cases, and which was raised and enclosed with railings and curtains in
order to separate it from the people. In the present case it means of
course a sort of cabinet which Paul had at the side of the tribunal, in
which he could hold private conferences, and whose resemblance to the
secretum of a civil magistrate he delighted to emphasize.

[2415] ‘Iesoun christon kEURtothen. Compare, by way of contrast, the
words of John iii. 31: ”He that cometh from above is above all” (ho
anothen erchomenos epEURno pEURnton estin). The words quoted in the
epistle can hardly have been used by Paul himself. They are rather to
be regarded as a logical inference from his positions stated by the
writers of the epistle in order to bring out the blasphemous nature of
his views when contrasted with the statement in John, which was
doubtless in their minds while they wrote.

[2416] The account seems to me without doubt overdrawn at this point.
It was such a common thing, from the time of Herod Agrippa down, to
accuse a man who was noted for his arrogance of encouraging the people
to call him an angel descended from heaven, that we should almost be
surprised if the accusation were omitted here. We have no reason to
think, in spite of the report of these good Fathers, that Paul’s
presumption went to such a blasphemous and at the same time absurd

[2417] suneisaktoi. On these Subintroductae, see Smith and Cheetham’s
Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v.

[2418] It is quite probable that Paul had given some ground for the
suspicions which the worthy bishops breathe here, but that is very far
from saying that he was actually guilty of immorality. In fact, just
below (S:13), they show that these are nothing more than suspicions.
Exactly what position the two women held who are mentioned in S:14 it
is difficult to say, but Paul must of course have given some plausible
reason for their presence, and this is implied in S:16, where the
writers say that were he orthodox, they would inquire his reasons for
this conduct, but since he is a heretic, it is not worth while to
investigate the matter. As remarked above, while the direct statements
of the epistle can in the main hardly be doubted, we must nevertheless
remember that the prejudices of the writers would lead them to paint
the life of Paul as black as circumstances could possibly warrant, and
unfounded suspicions might therefore easily be taken as equivalent to
proved charges.

[2419] cf. Ecclesiasticus xxv.

[2420] We get a glimpse here of the relative importance of orthodoxy
and morality in the minds of these Fathers. Had Paul been orthodox,
they would have asked him to explain his course, and would have
endeavored to persuade him to reform his conduct; but since he was a
heretic, it was not worth while. It is noticeable that he is not
condemned because he is immoral, but because he is heretical. The
implication is that he might have been even worse than he was in his
morals and yet no decisive steps have been taken against him, had he
not deviated from the orthodox faith. The Fathers, in fact, by their
letters, put themselves in a sad dilemma. Either Paul was not as wicked
as they try to make him out, or else they were shamefully indifferent
to the moral character of their bishops, and even of the incumbents of
their most prominent sees.

[2421] On Artemas, or Artemon, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1. Paul’s
heresy was a reproduction of his, as remarked above, chap. 27, note 4.

[2422] The action of this council in appointing Domnus was entirely
irregular, as the choice of the bishop devolved upon the clergy and the
people of the diocese. But the synod was afraid that Paul’s influence
would be great enough to secure his re-election, and hence they took
this summary means of disposing of him. But it was only after the
accession of Aurelian that Paul was actually removed from his bishopric
and Domnus was enabled to enter upon his office (see chap. 27, note 4).
The exact date of Domnus’ appointment is uncertain, as already shown
(see the note just referred to); so also the date of his death. Both
versions of the Chron. put his accession in the year of Abr. 2283 (a.d.
265), and Jerome’s version puts the accession of his successor,
Timaeus, in the year of Abr. 2288 (a.d. 270), while the Armenian omits
the notice entirely. We can place no reliance whatever upon these
dates; the date of Domnus’ death is certainly at least two years too
early (see the note already referred to).

[2423] On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of
Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

[2424] ta koinonika grEURmmata. Valesius says: ”The Latins call them
literas communicatorias, and the use of them is very ancient in the
Church. They were also called formatae (cf. Augustine Epistle 163).
These writers were of two kinds: the one given to the clergy and laity
when they were going to travel, in order that they might be admitted to
communion by foreign bishops: while the other kind were sent by bishops
to other bishops to declare their communion with them, and were in turn
received from other bishops. Of the latter the synod speaks here. They
were usually sent by new bishops soon after their ordination.” Valesius
refers to Augustine (ibid.), to Cyprian’s epistle to Cornelius (Ep. 41,
al. 45), and to the synodical epistle of the Council of Sardica.

[2425] This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the
mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very
probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his
activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly accepted
dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202-217).

[2426] See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment
Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.

[2427] Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth of
the ”ten great persecutions” against the Church. But the report is a
mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to which the report
is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died before he was
able to begin his intended persecution, and more than that, that he was
even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is not proper to
speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do who reject the
actual persecution). It is true that in Lactantius’ De mort.
persecutorum, chap. 6, it is said that Aurelian actually issued edicts
against the Christians, but that he died before they had found their
way to the most distant provinces. It seems probable, however, that
Eusebius’ account is nearest the truth, and that the reports that
Aurelian actually signed the edicts as well as that he commenced the
persecution are both developments from the original and more correct
version of the affair which Eusebius gives. There is no reason to doubt
the account of Eusebius. Aurelian’s conduct in the case of Paul does
not imply any special friendliness on his part toward the Church. The
Christians had secured legal recognition under Gallienus; and it was a
simple act of common justice to put the valuable property of the Church
in Antioch into the hands of the rightful owners whoever they might be.
His act does imply, however, that he cannot have been in the beginning
actively hostile to the Church, for in that case he would simply have
driven Paul out, and confiscated the property.

[2428] mononouchi ex ankonon tes encheireseos auton epidesmousa

[2429] Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by Tacitus,
who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to 282), who
was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian, and they in
turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus, although he
mentions him in his Chron., and assigns six months to his reign, and
five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian.

[2430] Diocletian associated Maximian with himself in the government in
286, and sent him to command the West with the title of Augustus. In
293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Caesars, giving to
the former the government of Gaul and Britain, to the latter that of
the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine, while Maximian held
Africa and Italy, and Diocletian himself retained the provinces of
Asia. He issued an edict, opening his famous persecution against the
Christians, of which Eusebius gives an account in the next book, on
Feb. 23, 303.

[2431] On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

[2432] According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on the
fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and
twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years as
the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome’s version of the
Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years, which is
absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of course a
copyist’s mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in the first year
of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian in the first
year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the way. Felix addressed a
letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maximus and the clergy of
Antioch, of which fragments have been preserved in the Apology of Cyril
of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (given by
Mansi, Conc. I. 1114). The report of his martyrdom is probably a
mistake, and has resulted from confusing him with Felix II., who was
bishop of Rome in the fourth century.

Chapter XXXI.–The Perversive Heresy of the Manicheans which began at
this Time.

1. At this time, the madman, [2433] named from his demoniacal heresy,
armed himself in the perversion of his reason, as the devil, Satan, who
himself fights against God, put him forward to the destruction of many.
He was a barbarian in life, both in word and deed; and in his nature
demoniacal and insane. In consequence of this he sought to pose as
Christ, and being puffed up in his madness, he proclaimed himself the
Paraclete and the very Holy Spirit; [2434] and afterwards, like Christ,
he chose twelve disciples as partners of his new doctrine.

2. And he patched together false and godless doctrines collected from a
multitude of long-extinct impieties, and swept them, like a deadly
poison, from Persia to our part of the world. From him the impious name
of the Manicheans is still prevalent among many. Such was the
foundation of this ”knowledge falsely so-called,” [2435] which sprang
up in those times.

[2433] The name Manes, or Mani, is not of Greek, but of Persian or
Semitic origin. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The Greek
form is MEURnes or Manichaios; the Latin form, Manes or Manichaeus. In
this place Eusebius instead of giving him his true name makes a play
upon it, calling him ho maneis tas phrenas, ”the madman.” This does not
imply that Eusebius supposed his name was originally Greek. He
perhaps–as others of the Fathers did–regarded it as a sign of divine
providence that the Persian name chosen by himself (Mani was not his
original name) should when reproduced in Greek bear such a significant
meaning. See Stroth’s note on this passage. Eusebius’ brief account is
the first authentic description we have of Manes and Manichaeism. It is
difficult to get at the exact truth in regard to the life of Manes
himself. We have it reported in two conflicting forms, an Oriental and
an Occidental. The former, however,–though our sources for it are much
later than for the latter–is undoubtedly the more reliable of the two.
The differences between the two accounts cannot be discussed here. We
know that Mani was a well-educated Persian philosopher of the third
century (according to Kessler, 205-276 a.d.; according to the Oriental
source used by Beausobre, about 240-276), who attempted to supersede
Zoroastrianism, the old religion of Persia, by a syncretistic system
made up of elements taken from Parsism, Buddhism, and Christianity. He
was at first well received by the Persian king, Sapor I., but aroused
the hatred of the Magian priests, and was compelled to flee from the
country. Returning after some time, he gained a large following, but
was put to death by King Varanes I, about 276 a.d. His sect spread
rapidly throughout Christendom, and in spite of repeated persecutions
flourished for many centuries. The mysteriousness of its doctrine, its
compact organization, its apparent solution of the terrible problem of
evil, and its show of ascetic holiness combined to make it very
attractive to thoughtful minds, as, e.g. to Augustine. The fundamental
principle of the system is a radical dualism between good and evil,
light and darkness. This dualism runs through its morals as well as
through its theology, and the result is a rigid asceticism.
Christianity furnished some ideas, but its influence is chiefly seen in
the organization of the sect, which had apostles, bishops, presbyters,
deacons, and traveling missionaries. Manichaeism cannot be called a
heresy,–it was rather an independent religion as Mohammedanism was.
The system cannot be further discussed here. The chief works upon the
subject are Beausobre’s Hist. Crit. de Manichee et du Manicheisme,
Amst. 1734 and 1739, 2 vols.; Baur’s Das Manichaeische Religionssystem,
Tueb. 1831; Fluegel’s Mani, Seine Lehre und seine Schriften, aus den
Fihrist des Abi Jakub an-Nadun, Leipzig, 1882; and two works by Kessler
(Leipzig, 1876 and 1882). See also the discussions of the system in the
various Church histories, and especially the respective articles by
Stokes and Kessler in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. and in

[2434] Beausobre maintains that Mani did not pretend to be the
Paraclete, but merely a man, the messenger of the Paraclete. The
Fathers generally, however agree with Eusebius in asserting that his
claims were of the very highest sort. The point cannot be
satisfactorily settled.

[2435] See 1 Tim. vi. 20.

Chapter XXXII.–The Distinguished Ecclesiastics [2436] of our Day, and
which of them survived until the Destruction of the Churches.

1. At this time, Felix, [2437] having presided over the church of Rome
for five years, was succeeded by Eutychianus, [2438] but he in less
than ten months left the position to Caius, [2439] who lived in our
day. He held it about fifteen years, and was in turn succeeded by
Marcellinus, [2440] who was overtaken by the persecution.

2. About the same time Timaeus [2441] received the episcopate of
Antioch after Domnus, [2442] and Cyril, [2443] who lived in our day,
succeeded him. In his time we became acquainted with Dorotheus, [2444]
a man of learning among those of his day, who was honored with the
office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a lover of the beautiful in
divine things, and devoted himself to the Hebrew language, so that he
read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility. [2445]

3. He belonged to those who were especially liberal, and was not
unacquainted with Grecian propaedeutics. [2446] Besides this he was a
eunuch, [2447] having been so from his very birth. On this account, as
if it were a miracle, the emperor [2448] took him into his family, and
honored him by placing him over the purple dye-works at Tyre. We have
heard him expound the Scriptures wisely in the Church.

4. After Cyril, Tyrannus [2449] received the episcopate of the parish
of Antioch. In his time occurred the destruction of the churches.

5. Eusebius, [2450] who had come from the city of Alexandria, ruled the
parishes of Laodicea after Socrates. [2451] The occasion of his removal
thither was the affair of Paul. He went on this account to Syria, and
was restrained from returning home by those there who were zealous in
divine things. Among our contemporaries he was a beautiful example of
religion, as is readily seen from the words of Dionysius which we have
quoted. [2452]

6. Anatolius [2453] was appointed his successor; one good man, as they
say, following another. He also was an Alexandrian by birth. In
learning and skill in Greek philosophy, such as arithmetic and
geometry, astronomy, and dialectics in general, as well as in the
theory of physics, he stood first among the ablest men of our time, and
he was also at the head in rhetorical science. It is reported that for
this reason he was requested by the citizens of Alexandria to establish
there a school of Aristotelian philosophy. [2454]

7. They relate of him many other eminent deeds during the siege of the
Pyrucheium [2455] in Alexandria, on account of which he was especially
honored by all those in high office; but I will give the following only
as an example.

8. They say that bread had failed the besieged, so that it was more
difficult to withstand the famine than the enemy outside; but he being
present provided for them in this manner. As the other part of the city
was allied with the Roman army, and therefore was not under siege,
Anatolius sent for Eusebius,–for he was still there before his
transfer to Syria, and was among those who were not besieged, and
possessed, moreover, a great reputation and a renowned name which had
reached even the Roman general,–and he informed him of those who were
perishing in the siege from famine.

9. When he learned this he requested the Roman commander as the
greatest possible favor, to grant safety to deserters from the enemy.
Having obtained his request, he communicated it to Anatolius. As soon
as he received the message he convened the senate of Alexandria, and at
first proposed that all should come to a reconciliation with the
Romans. But when he perceived that they were angered by this advice, he
said, ”But I do not think you will oppose me, if I counsel you to send
the supernumeraries and those who are in nowise useful to us, as old
women and children and old men, outside the gates, to go wherever they
may please. For why should we retain for no purpose these who must at
any rate soon die? and why should we destroy with hunger those who are
crippled and maimed in body, when we ought to provide only for men and
youth, and to distribute the necessary bread among those who are needed
for the garrison of the city?”

10. With such arguments he persuaded the assembly, and rising first he
gave his vote that the entire multitude, whether of men or women, who
were not needful for the army, should depart from the city, because if
they remained and unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be
for them no hope of safety, but they would perish with famine.

11. As all the others in the senate agreed to this, he saved almost all
the besieged. He provided that first, those belonging to the church,
and afterwards, of the others in the city, those of every age should
escape, not only the classes included in the decree, but, under cover
of these, a multitude of others, secretly clothed in women’s garments;
and through his management they went out of the gates by night and
escaped to the Roman camp. There Eusebius, like a father and physician,
received all of them, wasted away through the long siege, and restored
them by every kind of prudence and care.

12. The church of Laodicea was honored by two such pastors in
succession, who, in the providence of God, came after the aforesaid war
from Alexandria to that city.

13. Anatolius did not write very many works; but in such as have come
down to us we can discern his eloquence and erudition. In these he
states particularly his opinions on the passover. It seems important to
give here the following extracts from them. [2456]

14. From the Paschal Canons of Anatolius. ”There is then in the first
year the new moon of the first month, which is the beginning of every
cycle of nineteen years, [2457] on the twenty-sixth day of the Egyptian
Phamenoth; [2458] but according to the months of the Macedonians, the
twenty-second day of Dystrus, [2459] or, as the Romans would say, the
eleventh before the Kalends of April.

15. On the said twenty-sixth of Phamenoth, the sun is found not only
entered on the first segment, [2460] but already passing through the
fourth day in it. They are accustomed to call this segment the first
dodecatomorion, [2461] and the equinox, and the beginning of months,
and the head of the cycle, and the starting-point of the planetary
circuit. But they call the one preceding this the last of months, and
the twelfth segment, and the final dodecatomorion, and the end of the
planetary circuit. Wherefore we maintain that those who place the first
month in it, and determine by it the fourteenth of the passover, commit
no slight or common blunder.

16. And this is not an opinion of our own; but it was known to the Jews
of old, even before Christ, and was carefully observed by them. This
may be learned from what is said by Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus;
[2462] and not only by them, but also by those yet more ancient, the
two Agathobuli, [2463] surnamed `Masters,’ and the famous Aristobulus,
[2464] who was chosen among the seventy interpreters of the sacred and
divine Hebrew Scriptures [2465] by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father,
and who also dedicated his exegetical books on the law of Moses to the
same kings.

17. These writers, explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say
that all alike should sacrifice the passover offerings after the vernal
equinox, in the middle of the first month. But this occurs while the
sun is passing through the first segment of the solar, or as some of
them have styled it, the zodiacal circle. Aristobulus adds that it is
necessary for the feast of the passover, that not only the sun should
pass through the equinoctial segment, but the moon also.

18. For as there are two equinoctial segments, the vernal and the
autumnal, directly opposite each other, and as the day of the passover
was appointed on the fourteenth of the month, beginning with the
evening, the moon will hold a position diametrically opposite the sun,
as may be seen in full moons; and the sun will be in the segment of the
vernal equinox, and of necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.

19. I know that many other things have been said by them, some of them
probable, and some approaching absolute demonstration, by which they
endeavor to prove that it is altogether necessary to keep the passover
and the feast of unleavened bread after the equinox. But I refrain from
demanding this sort of demonstration for matters from which the veil of
the Mosaic law has been removed, so that now at length with uncovered
face we continually behold as in a glass Christ and the teachings and
sufferings of Christ. [2466] But that with the Hebrews the first month
was near the equinox, the teachings also of the Book of Enoch show.”

20. The same writer has also left the Institutes of Arithmetic, in ten
books, [2468] and other evidences of his experience and proficiency in
divine things.

21. Theotecnus, [2469] bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, first ordained
him as bishop, designing to make him his successor in his own parish
after his death. And for a short time both of them presided over the
same church. [2470] But the synod which was held to consider Paul’s
case [2471] called him to Antioch, and as he passed through the city of
Laodicea, Eusebius being dead, he was detained by the brethren there.

22. And after Anatolius had departed this life, the last bishop of that
parish before the persecution was Stephen, [2472] who was admired by
many for his knowledge of philosophy and other Greek learning. But he
was not equally devoted to the divine faith, as the progress of the
persecution manifested; for it showed that he was a cowardly and
unmanly dissembler rather than a true philosopher.

23. But this did not seriously injure the church, for Theodotus [2473]
restored their affairs, being straightway made bishop of that parish by
God himself, the Saviour of all. He justified by his deeds both his
lordly name [2474] and his office of bishop. For he excelled in the
medical art for bodies, and in the healing art for souls. Nor did any
other man equal him in kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and zeal in
helping such as needed his aid. He was also greatly devoted to divine
learning. Such an one was he.

24. In Caesarea in Palestine, Agapius [2475] succeeded Theotecnus, who
had most zealously performed the duties of his episcopate. Him too we
know to have labored diligently, and to have manifested most genuine
providence in his oversight of the people, particularly caring for all
the poor with liberal hand.

25. In his time we became acquainted with Pamphilus, [2476] that most
eloquent man, of truly philosophical life, who was esteemed worthy of
the office of presbyter in that parish. It would be no small matter to
show what sort of a man he was and whence he came. But we have
described, in our special work concerning him, [2477] all the
particulars of his life, and of the school which he established, and
the trials which he endured in many confessions during the persecution,
and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of
all that were there he was indeed the most admirable.

26. Among those nearest our times, we have known Pierius, [2478] of the
presbyters in Alexandria, and Meletius, [2479] bishop of the churches
in Pontus,–rarest of men.

27. The first was distinguished for his life of extreme poverty and his
philosophic learning, and was exceedingly diligent in the contemplation
and exposition of divine things, and in public discourses in the
church. Meletius, whom the learned called the ”honey of Attica,” [2480]
was a man whom every one would describe as most accomplished in all
kinds of learning; and it would be impossible to admire sufficiently
his rhetorical skill. It might be said that he possessed this by
nature; but who could surpass the excellence of his great experience
and erudition in other respects?

28. For in all branches of knowledge had you undertaken to try him even
once, you would have said that he was the most skillful and learned.
Moreover, the virtues of his life were not less remarkable. We observed
him well in the time of the persecution, when for seven full years he
was escaping from its fury in the regions of Palestine.

29. Zambdas [2481] received the episcopate of the church of Jerusalem
after the bishop Hymenaeus, whom we mentioned a little above. [2482] He
died in a short time, and Hermon, [2483] the last before the
persecution in our day, succeeded to the apostolic chair, which has
been preserved there until the present time. [2484]

30. In Alexandria, Maximus, [2485] who, after the death of Dionysius,
[2486] had been bishop for eighteen years, was succeeded by Theonas.
[2487] In his time Achillas, [2488] who had been appointed a presbyter
in Alexandria at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated. He was
placed over the school of the sacred faith, [2489] and exhibited fruits
of philosophy most rare and inferior to none, and conduct genuinely

31. After Theonas had held the office for nineteen years, Peter [2490]
received the episcopate in Alexandria, and was very eminent among them
for twelve entire years. Of these he governed the church less than
three years before the persecution, and for the remainder of his life
he subjected himself to a more rigid discipline and cared in no secret
manner for the general interest of the churches. On this account he was
beheaded in the ninth year of the persecution, and was adorned with the
crown of martyrdom.

32. Having written out in these books the account of the successions
from the birth of our Saviour to the destruction of the places of
worship,–a period of three hundred and five years, [2491] –permit me
to pass on to the contests of those who, in our day, have heroically
fought for religion, and to leave in writing, for the information of
posterity, the extent and the magnitude of those conflicts.

[2436] ekklesiastikon andron.

[2437] On Felix, see chap. 30, note 34.

[2438] Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees with this passage in
assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus, while the
Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue, however,
gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius accepts
these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of
January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome puts
his accession in the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the mark,
the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by about two
years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church History and the
Chron. as a change, in their original source, of years to mouths. The
present error makes up in part for the error in chap. 27, where Xystus
is given eleven years instead of eleven months. Eutychianus was not a
martyr, but was buried, according to the Liberian catalogue, in the
Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a statement which has been confirmed by the
discovery of a stone bearing his name.

[2439] According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on the
17th of December, 283, and held office for twelve years four months and
six (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these dates are
accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the Chron. agree with
the History in assigning fifteen years to Caius’ episcopate, but this
error is of a piece with the others which abound in this period. The
report of his martyrdom is fabulous.

[2440] According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became bishop
on the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three months
and twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304, and these
dates Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is considerable
uncertainty as to the exact date of his death. Jerome’s version of the
Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of Diocletian, which is
not far out of the way, but does not give the duration of his
episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The Armenian Chron. does
not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition, although denied by many of
the Fathers, says that he proved wanting in the Diocletian persecution,
and this seems to have been a fact. It is also said that he afterward
repented and suffered martyrdom, but that is only an invention. The
expression of Eusebius in this connection is ambiguous; he simply says
he was ”overtaken by the persecution,” which might mean martyrdom, or
might mean simply arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from
Pontianus to Caius were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he
was buried in those of Priscilla.

[2441] Of Timaeus we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The Chron.
puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d.), and the
accession of his successor, Cyril, in 2297 (279 a.d.), but the former
at least is certainly far too early. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53)
concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as 280, and hence
neither Domnus nor Timaeus can have held office a great while.

[2442] On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24.

[2443] According to Jerome’s Chron., Cyril became bishop in the year of
Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279-280 a.d.); and Harnack accepts
this as at least approximately correct. The same authority puts the
accession of his successor, Tyrannus, in the eighteenth year of
Diocletian (301-302 a.d.), and just below Eusebius says that the
destruction of the churches (in Diocletian’s persecution) took place
under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the Passio sanctorum quattuor
coronatorum (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 259-271)
contains a reference to him which assumes that he was condemned to the
mines, and died there after three years. The condemnation, if a fact,
must have taken place after the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d.),
and his death therefore in 306. There is no other authority for this
report, but Harnack considers it in the highest degree probable, and
the indirect way in which Cyril is mentioned certainly argues for its
truth. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, however, seems to have known
anything about it, and this is very hard to explain. The matter must,
in fact, be left undecided. See Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53 sq.

[2444] This Dorotheus and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned below, in
Bk. VIII. chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the sound
critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological school
at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of Alexandria, in
which the allegorical method was practiced. From Bk. VIII. chap. 6 we
learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by hanging early in the
Diocletian persecution, so that it must have been from this emperor,
and not from Constantine, that he received his appointment mentioned
just below. Diocletian, before he began to persecute, had a number of
Christian officials in his household, and treated them with
considerable favor.

[2445] As Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means a
common thing among the early teachers of the Church; and therefore
Dorotheus is praised for his acquaintance with it.

[2446] propaideias tes kath’ ;’Ellenas. Compare. Bk. VI. chap. 18, S:3.

[2447] According to the first canon of the Council of Nicaea (see
Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I. p. 376), persons who made themselves
eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to remain
clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to apply to
persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their persecutors;
and the latter part of the canon confines the prohibition expressly to
those who have purposely performed the act upon themselves, and hence
nothing would have stood in the way of the advancement of one born a
eunuch as Dorotheus was, even had he lived after the Council of Nicaea,
and still less previous to that time. Closs (followed by Heinichen) is
therefore hardly correct in regarding the fact that Dorotheus held
office as an exception to the established order of things.

[2448] i.e. Diocletian.

[2449] According to Jerome’s Chron. Tyrannus became bishop in the
eighteenth year of Diocletian (301-302). If the account of Cyril’s
death accepted by Harnack be taken as correct, this date is at least a
year too early. If Cyril was sent to the mines in 303 and died in 306,
Tyrannus may have become bishop in 303, or not until 306. According to
Theodoret, H. E. I. 3, his successor, Vitalis, is said to have become
bishop ”after peace had been restored to the Church,” which seems to
imply, though it is not directly said, that Tyrannus himself lived
until that time (i.e. until 311). We know nothing certainly either
about his character or the dates of his episcopate.

[2450] This Eusebius, who is mentioned with praise by Dionysius of
Alexandria, in the epistle quoted in chap. 11, above, was a deacon in
the church of Alexandria, who distinguished himself by his good offices
during the persecution of Valerian (a.d. 257), as recorded in that
epistle, and also during the revolt and siege of Alexandria after the
death of Valerian (in 262), as recorded in this chapter. From the
account given here we see that he attended the first, or at least one
of the earlier councils of Antioch in which the case of Paul was
discussed (undoubtedly as the representative of Dionysius, whose age
prevented his attending the first one, as mentioned in chap. 27), and
the Laodiceans, becoming acquainted with him there, compelled him to
accept the bishopric of their church, at that time vacant. As we see
from the account of Anatolius’ appointment farther on in this chapter,
he died before the meeting of the council which condemned Paul. We know
in regard to him only what is told us in these two chapters. The name
Eusebius was a very common one in the early Church. The Dict. of
Christ. Biog. mentions 137 persons of that name belonging to the first
eight centuries.

[2451] Of this Socrates we know nothing.

[2452] In chap. 11, above.

[2453] Anatolius we are told here was a man of great distinction both
for his learning and for his practical common sense. It is not said
that he held any ecclesiastical office in Alexandria, but farther on in
the chapter we are told that he left that city after the close of the
siege, as Eusebius had done, and that he was ordained assistant bishop
by Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, and was the latter’s colleague in
that church for a short time. When on his way to (possibly on his
return from) the synod of Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul
(and at which Theotecnus was also present), he passed through Laodicea
and was prevailed upon to accept the bishopric of that city, Eusebius,
his old friend, being deceased. The way in which Laodicea got its two
bishops is thus somewhat remarkable. The character of Anatolius is
clear from the account which follows. Jerome mentions him in his de
vir. ill. chap. 73, and in his Ep. ad Magnum (Migne, No. 70), but adds
nothing to Eusebius’ account. Upon his writings, one of which is quoted
in this chapter, see below, notes 21 and 32.

[2454] tes ‘Aristotelous diadoches ten diatriben: ”A school of the
Aristotelian succession,” or ”order.”

[2455] The Pyrucheium (the mss. of Eusebius vary considerably in their
spelling, but I have adopted that form which seems best supported) or
Brucheium (as it is called by other ancient writers and as it is more
generally known) was one of the three districts of Alexandria and was
inhabited by the royal family and by the Greeks. It was the finest and
most beautiful quarter of the city, and contained, besides the royal
palaces, many magnificent public buildings. Comprising, as it did, the
citadel as well, it was besieged a number of times, and it is uncertain
which siege is meant in the present case. It seems to me most likely
that we are to think of the time of the revolt of AEmilian (see above,
chap. 11, note 4), in 260 a.d., when the Romans under Theodotus
besieged and finally (just how soon we cannot tell, but the city seems
to have been at peace again at least in 264) took the Brucheium.
Valesius and others think of a later siege under Claudius, but that
seems to me too late (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 345 sq.).

[2456] Anatolius’ work on the passover is still extant in a Latin
translation supposed to be the work of Rufinus (though this is
uncertain), and which was first published by AEgidius Bucherius in his
Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp, 1634. Ideler (Chron. II. 230) claims that
this supposed translation of Anatolius is a work of the seventh
century. But there are the best of reasons for supposing it an early
translation of Anatolius’ genuine work (see Zahn, Forschungen zur
Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, III. p. 177-196). The Latin version is given
with the other extant fragments of Anatolius’ works in Migne’s Pat. Gr.
X. 209-222, 231-236, and an English translation of the Paschal Canons
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 146-151. Upon this work of
Anatolius, see especially the works of Ideler and Zahn referred to just

[2457] Anatolius was, so far as we know, the first Christian to employ
the old Metonic nineteen-year cycle for the determination of Easter
(see above, chap. 20, note 6).

[2458] Phamenoth was the seventh month of the Alexandrian year, which
was introduced in the reign of Augustus (b.c. 25) and began on the 29th
of August. The month Phamenoth, therefore, began on the 25th of
February, and the 26th of the month corresponded to the 22d of our

[2459] Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, and
corresponded exactly with our March, so that the 22d of Dystrus was the
22d of March, which according to the Roman method of reckoning was the
eleventh day before the Kalends of April.

[2460] i.e. the first of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. On Anatolius’
method of calculation, see Ideler, ibid.

[2461] dodekatemorion: ”twelfth-part.”

[2462] So far as I am aware, Musaeus is known to us only from this
reference of Anatolius.

[2463] Who the two Agathobuli were we do not know. In the Chron. of
Eusebius a philosopher Agathobulus is mentioned under the third year of
Hadrian in connection with Plutarch, Sextus, and OEnomaus. Valesius
therefore suspects that Anatolius is in error in putting the Agathobuli
earlier than Philo and Josephus. I must confess, however, that the
connection in which Eusebius mentions Agathobulus in his Chron. makes
it seem to me very improbable that he can be referring to either of the
Agathobuli whom Anatolius mentions, and that it is much more likely
that the latter were two closely related Jewish writers (perhaps father
and son), who lived, as Anatolius says, before the time of Philo.

[2464] Aristobulus was a well-known Hellenistic philosopher of
Alexandria, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor in the second
century b.c. He was thoroughly acquainted with Greek philosophy, and
was in many respects the forerunner of Philo. Anatolius’ statement that
he wrote in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and consequently his
report that he was one of the seventy translators of the Septuagint (on
the legend as to its composition, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31) must be
looked upon as certainly an error (see Clement Alex Strom. I. 22,
Eusebius’ Praep. Evang. IX. 6, and XIII. 12, and his Chron., year of
Abr. 1841). He is mentioned often by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen
(Contra Cels. IV. 51), and by Eusebius, who in his Praep. Evang. (VII.
14 and VIII. 10) gives two fragments of his work (or works) On the
Mosaic Law. It is doubtless to this same work that Anatolius refers in
the present passage. No other fragments of his writings are extant. See
especially Schuerer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II. p.
760 sq. See also Bk. VI. chap. 23, note 13, above.

[2465] On the origin of the LXX, see above, Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
The mythical character of the common legend in regard to its
composition is referred to in that note, and that the LXX (or at least
that part of it which comprises the law) was already in existence
before the time of Aristobulus is clear from the latter’s words, quoted
by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XIII. 12, 1-2 (Heinichen’s ed.).

[2466] Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18.

[2467] The Book of Enoch is one of the so-called Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha, which was widely used in the ancient Church, and is
quoted in the Epistle of Jude, 14 sq. The work disappeared after about
the fifth century, and was supposed to have perished (with the
exception of a few fragments) until in 1773 it was discovered entire in
an Ethiopic Bible, and in 1838 was published in Ethiopic by Lawrence,
who in 1821 had already translated it into English. Dillmann also
published the Ethiopic text in 1851, and in 1853 a German translation
with commentary. Dillmann’s edition of the original entirely supersedes
that of Lawrence, and his translation and commentary still form the
standard work upon the subject. More recently it has been re-translated
into English and discussed by George H. Schodde: The Book of Enoch,
translated, with Introduction and Notes, Andover, 1882. The literature
on the book of Enoch is very extensive. See especially Schodde’s work,
the German translation of Dillmann, Schuerer’s Gesch. der Juden, II. p.
616 sq., and Lipsius’ article, Enoch, Apocryphal Book of, in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. The teachings of the book to which Anatolius refers
are found in the seventy-second chapter (Schodde’s ed. p. 179 sq.),
which contains a detailed description of the course of the sun during
the various months of the year.

[2468] ‘Arithmetikas eisagogEURs. A few fragments of this work are
given in the Theologumena Arithmeticae (Paris, 1543), p. 9, 16, 24, 34,
56, 64 (according to Fabricius), and by Fabricius in his Bibl. Gr. II.
275-277 (ed. Harles, III. 462 sq.).

[2469] On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.

[2470] On the custom of appointing assistant bishops, see Bk. VI. chap.
11, note 1.

[2471] Eusebius doubtless refers here to the final council at which
Paul was condemned, and which has been already mentioned in chaps. 29
and 30 (on its date, see chap. 29, note 1). That it is this particular
council to which he refers is implied in the way in which it is spoken
of,–as if referring to the well-known synod, of which so much has been
said,–and still further by the fact that Eusebius, who had attended
the first one (see above, S:5), and had then become bishop of Laodicea,
was already dead.

[2472] Of Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, we know only what Eusebius tells
us in this passage.

[2473] Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in this
passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and played a
prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the most zealous
supporters of the Arian cause (see Theodoret, H. E. I. 5 and V. 7, and
Athanasius de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. I. 17). He was present at the
Council of Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. II. 51), and took part in the council
which deposed Eustathius of Antioch, in 330 (according to Theodoret, H.
E. I. 21, whose account, though unreliable, is very likely correct so
far as its list of bishops is concerned; on the council, see also p.
21, above). He was already dead in the year 341; for his successor,
George, was present at the Council of Antioch (In Encaeniis), which was
held in that year (see Sozomen, H. E. III. 5, and cf. Hefele,
Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.). We have no information that he was
present at the Council of Tyre, in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by
Labbe, who confounds Theodore of Heraclea with Theodotus; see
Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). It is, therefore, possible that he was dead at
that time, though his absence of course does not prove it. According to
Socrates, H. E. II. 46, and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had
trouble with the two Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at
Antioch. We do not know the date of the younger Apolinarius’ birth (the
approximate date, 335, given in the article in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. is a gross error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than
320, and therefore as he was a reader in the church, according to
Socrates (Sozomen calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it
seems best to put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps
well on toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as
Eusebius says that he became bishop straightway after the fall of
Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311; so that he
held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables’ article on
Theodotus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a tissue of errors, caused
by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea (an error committed
by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus, present at the Council
of Seleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I. 12; cf. Hefele,
Conciliengesch. I. p. 713).

[2474] Theodotos: ”God-given.”

[2475] Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage.
He was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church of Caesarea,
and probably survived the persecution, but not for many years (see
above, p. 10 sq.). Eusebius speaks of him in the past tense, so that he
was clearly already dead at the time this part of the History was
written (i.e. probably in 313; see above, p. 45).

[2476] Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea, was Eusebius’ teacher and
most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed his affection
and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself Eusebius
Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (according to Photius,
under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the head of the
catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53), and conceived
an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light of that school,
which he never lost. Pamphilus is chiefly celebrated for the library
which he collected at Caesarea and to which Eusebius owes a large part
of the materials of his history. Jerome also made extensive use of it.
It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture, of commentaries upon
it, and of Origen’s works (see above, p. 38). He wrote very little,
devoting himself chiefly to the study of Scripture, and to the
transcription of mss. of it and of the works of Origen. During the last
two years of his life, however, while in prison, he wrote with the
assistance of Eusebius a Defense of Origen in five books, to which
Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see above, p. 36 sq.). During the
persecution under Maximinus, he was thrown into prison by Urbanus,
prefect of Caesarea, in 307, and after remaining two years in close
confinement, cheered by the companionship of Eusebius, he was put to
death by Firmilian, the successor of Urbanus, in 309, as recorded
below, in the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The
Life of Pamphilus which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above,
p. 28). On Pamphilus, see Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius,
Cod. 118. See also the present volume, p. 5-9 passim.

[2477] On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above p. 28 sq.

[2478] According to Jerome (de vir. ill. 76) Pierius was a presbyter
and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Carus and Diocletian,
while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on account of the
elegance of his writings was called ”the younger Origen,” was skilled,
moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived an ascetic life, and passed
his later years, after the persecution, in Rome. According to Photius,
Cod. 118, he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria,
was the teacher of Pamphilus, and finally suffered martyrdom. Photius
may be correct in the former statements. The last statement is at
variance with Jerome’s distinct report which in the present instance at
least is to be decidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first
statement also is subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius
(S:30, below), Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as
Pierius, and who lived until after the persecution (when he became
bishop), was principal of the school. Eusebius’ statement must be
accepted as correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the
report of Photius, both on account of Eusebius’ silence in regard to
Pierius’ connection with the school, and also because if Pierius was
principal of the school, he must apparently have given it up while he
was still in Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than Jerome
says. It is more probable that Photius’ report is false and rests upon
a combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If both the first
and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little faith can be
placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be simply a
combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in Alexandria with
the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the catechetical
school while he was there. It is quite as probable that Pamphilus
studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of works
(tractatuum) by Pierius were extant in his day, among them a long
homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome’s Comment. in Osee, prologus). In his
second epistle to Pammachius (Migne, No. 49) Jerome refers also to
Pierius’ commentary on First Corinthians, and quotes from it the words,
”In saying this Paul openly preaches celibacy.” Photius, Cod. 119,
mentions a work in twelve books, whose title he does not name, but in
which he tells us Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in
regard to the Spirit, pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the
Son. This work contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke’s
Gospel, and another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius’ writings
are no longer extant. The passages from Jerome’s epistle to Pammachius
and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by Routh, Rel. Sac.
2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a ”younger Origen” in his
theology as well as in his literary character, as we can gather from
Photius’ account of him (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 640).

[2479] A Meletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by
Philostorgius (H. E. I. 8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicaea,
and it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here
by Eusebius. But Eusebius’ words seem to me to imply clearly that the
Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he wrote; and,
therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring to the same
man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his statement, possibly
confounding him with the later Meletius of Sebaste, afterwards of
Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubtless to be identified with the
orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms of praise by Athanasius, in his
Ep. ad Episc. AEg. S:8, and by Basil in his De Spir. Sanct. chap. 29,
S:74. It is suggested by Stroth that Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius
during the time that the latter was in Palestine, but this is not
implied in Eusebius’ words (see above, p. 5).

[2480] to meli tes ‘Attikes, in allusion to Meletius’ name.

[2481] The majority of the mss. and editors read ZEURmbdas. A few mss.
followed by Laemmer read Zabadas, and a few others with Rufinus, both
versions of the Chron. and Nicephorus ZEURbdas. We know nothing about
this bishop, except what is told us here and in the Chron., where he is
called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome calls him the thirty-seventh,
but incorrectly according to his own list), and is said to have entered
upon his office in the fifteenth year of Diocletian (Armen.
fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded him three years later,
according to Jerome; two years later, according to the Armenian

[2482] In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter.

[2483] According to Jerome’s version of the Chron., Hermon became
bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301; according to the
Armenian, in the sixteenth year. The accession of his successor
Macharius is put by Jerome in the eighth year of Constantine, a.d. 312.
Eusebius’ words seem to imply that Hermon was still bishop at the time
he was writing, though it is not certain that he means to say that.
Jerome’s date may be incorrect, but is probably not far out of the way.
Of Hermon himself we know nothing more.

[2484] See above, chap. 19.

[2485] On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10.

[2486] On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

[2487] According to Jerome’s Chron., Theonas became bishop in the sixth
year of Probus (281 a.d.); according to the Armenian, in the first year
of Numerian and Carinus, i.e. a year later. Both agree with the History
in assigning nineteen years to his episcopate. An interesting and
admirable epistle is extant addressed to Lucian, the chief chamberlain
of the emperor, and containing advice in regard to the duties of his
position, which is commonly and without doubt correctly ascribed to
Theonas. The name of the emperor is not given, but all of the
circumstances point to Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in
influential positions in his household during the earlier years of his
reign. The epistle, which is in Latin (according to some a translation
of a Greek original), is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439-445, and an
English translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p.

[2488] The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by
Athanasius, who calls him ”the great Achillas” (in his Epistle to the
Bishops of Egypt, S:23). He succeeded Peter as bishop of Alexandria
(Epiphanius makes him the successor of Alexander, but wrongly, for the
testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing of Jerome, Socrates, and other
writers, is decisive on this point; see Athanasius’ Apology against the
Arians, S:S:11 and 59, and Epist. to the Bishops of Egypt, S:23), but
our authorities differ as to the date of his accession and the length
of his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter, S:31, puts the death of
Peter in the ninth year of the persecution 311-312), and with this
Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can be no doubt as to the
correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite inconsistently (unless
it be supposed that Achillas became bishop before Peter’s death, which,
in the face of Eusebius’ silence on the subject, is very improbable),
Jerome puts the accession of Achillas into the fifth year of
Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits another error in putting the
accession of his successor, Alexander, in the sixteenth year of
Constantine (a.d. 320); for Alexander’s controversy with Arius (see
above, p. 11 sq.) can hardly have broken out later than 318 or 319, and
it would appear that Alexander had been bishop already some time when
that took place. Theodoret (H. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the
church but a short time, and with him agrees Epiphanius (Haer. LXIX.
11), who says that he held office but three months. The casual way in
which Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention
him only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm
Theodoret’s report, and Alexander’s accession may, therefore, be put
not long after 311.

[2489] tes hieras pisteos to didaskaleion. Eusebius refers here to the
famous catechetical school of Alexandria (upon which, see above, Bk. V.
chap. 10, note 2). The appointment of Achillas to the principalship of
this school would seem to exclude Pierius, who is said by Photius to
have been at the head of it (see above, note 42).

[2490] Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX.
chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage his
death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite
unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year of the
persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb. 311 to
Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius own reckoning, Mar. or Apr. 311 to
Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o), and evidently
after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, when the
Christians were not looking for any further molestation (see below, Bk.
VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage, Peter was bishop
less than three years before the outbreak of the persecution, and hence
he cannot have become bishop before the spring of 300. On the other
hand since he died as early as the spring of 312, and was bishop twelve
years he must have become bishop not later than the spring of 300, and
he must have died not long before the spring of 312, and even then, if
Eusebius’ other statements are exact, it is impossible to make his
episcopate fully twelve years in length. The date thus obtained for his
accession is in accord with the dates given for the episcopate of his
predecessor Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession in
the nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d. 302), but this is at variance
with his own figures in connection with Theonas, and is plainly
incorrect. Fourteen Canons, containing detailed directions in regard to
the lapsed were drawn up by Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of
the first canon), and are still extant. They are published in all
collections of canons and also in numerous other works. See especially
Routh’s Rel. Sac. IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is given in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 269-278. Brief fragments of other works–On
the Passover, On the Godhead, On the Advent of the Saviour, On the
Soul, and the beginning of an epistle addressed to the
Alexandrians–are given by Routh, ibid. p. 45 sq. These fragments,
together with a few others of doubtful origin, given by Gallandius and
Mai, are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ibid. p. 280-283. In
the same volume (p. 261-268) are given The Genuine Acts of Peter,
containing an account of his life and martyrdom. These, however, are
spurious and historically quite worthless. Peter seems, to judge from
the extant fragments, to have been in the main an Origenist, but to
have departed in some important respects from the teachings of Origen,
especially on the subject of anthropology (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch.
I. p. 644). The famous Meletian schism took its rise during the
episcopate of Peter (see Athanasius, Apology against the Arians, S:59).

[2491] Diocletian’s edict decreeing the demolition of the churches was
published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.