Literature Archives · Home

---

Eusebius Pamphilius

Archives

Church History

Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius

Book 1 · Book 2 · Book 3 · Book 4 · Book 5 · Book 6 · Book 7 · Book 8 · Book 9 · Book 10 · Preface

---

Book VII.

Introduction.

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

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

Chapter 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this Subject.

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

[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 5

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
controversy.
__________________________________________________________________

[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.
S:6).

[2180] apolousasthai

[2181] Dionysius afterward became Xystus' successor as bishop of Rome.
See below, chap. 27, note 2.

[2182] Of this Philemon we know only that he was a presbyter of Rome at
this time (see below, chap. 7, S:1). A fragment from Dionysius' epistle
to him on the subject of baptism is quoted in that chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 6

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 7

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
have.

[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 8

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 9

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
eucharist.

[2208] On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

[2209] So many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot
speak with certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here.
But it may perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian
Confessor is meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by granting
letters of pardon indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of
regular custom and of Cyprian's authority (see Cypriani Ep. 16, 17, 20,
21, 22; al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred to, the
epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions upon which
they were to be received again into the Church. That the epistle did
not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do with the subject of
baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not numbered among the
epistles on that subject, as six others are.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 10

Valerian and the Persecution under him.

1. Gallus and the other rulers, [2210] having held the government less
than two years, were overthrown, and Valerian, with his son Gallienus,
received the empire. The circumstances which Dionysius relates of him
we may learn from his epistle to Hermammon, [2211] in which he gives
the following account:

2. "And in like manner it is revealed to John; `For there was given to
him,' he says, `a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy; and there
was given unto him authority and forty and two months.' [2212]

3. It is wonderful that both of these things occurred under Valerian;
and it is the more remarkable in this case when we consider his
previous conduct, for he had been mild and friendly toward the men of
God, for none of the emperors before him had treated them so kindly and
favorably; and not even those who were said openly to be Christians
[2213] received them with such manifest hospitality and friendliness as
he did at the beginning of his reign. For his entire house was filled
with pious persons and was a church of God.

4. But the teacher and ruler of the synagogue of the Magi from Egypt
[2214] persuaded him to change his course, urging him to slay and
persecute pure and holy men [2215] because they opposed and hindered
the corrupt and abominable incantations. For there are and there were
men who, being present and being seen, though they only breathed and
spoke, were able to scatter the counsels of the sinful demons. And he
induced him to practice initiations and abominable sorceries and to
offer unacceptable sacrifices; to slay innumerable children and to
sacrifice the offspring of unhappy fathers; to divide the bowels of
new-born babes and to mutilate and cut to pieces the creatures of God,
as if by such practices they could attain happiness."

5. He adds to this the following: "Splendid indeed were the
thank-offerings which Macrianus brought them [2216] for the empire
which was the object of his hopes. He is said to have been formerly the
emperor's general finance minister [2217] ; yet he did nothing
praiseworthy or of general benefit, [2218] but fell under the prophetic
saying,

6. `Woe unto those who prophesy from their own heart and do not
consider the general good.' [2219] For he did not perceive the general
Providence, nor did he look for the judgment of Him who is before all,
and through all, and over all. Wherefore he became an enemy of his
Catholic [2220] Church, and alienated and estranged himself from the
compassion of God, and fled as far as possible from his salvation. In
this he showed the truth of his own name." [2221]

7. And again, farther on he says: "For Valerian, being instigated to
such acts by this man, was given over to insults and reproaches,
according to what was said by Isaiah: `They have chosen their own ways
and their abominations in which their soul delighted; I also will
choose their delusions and will render unto them their sins.' [2222]

8. But this man [2223] madly desired the kingdom though unworthy of it,
and being unable to put the royal garment on his crippled body, set
forward his two sons to bear their father's sins. [2224] For concerning
them the declaration which God spoke was plain, `Visiting the
iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation of them that hate me.' [2225]

9. For heaping on the heads of his sons his own evil desires, in which
he had met with success, [2226] he wiped off upon them his own
wickedness and hatred toward God."

Dionysius relates these things concerning Valerian.
__________________________________________________________________

[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 11

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
me.

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
Scripture.

[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
them.

[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
locum).

[2249] kata meros sunagogai, literally, "partial meetings." It is plain
enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were allowed to
hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and were not
compelled always to attend the city church, which might be a number of
miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this passage is
sufficient to warrant Valesius' conclusion, that in the time of
Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the brethren
met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do not appear to
indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were in a different
state then from that which existed in the time of Athanasius, who, in
his Apology to Constantius, 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 12

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.
[2266]
__________________________________________________________________

[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 13

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'
hands.

[2268] Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts
(progrEURmmata, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from
the rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to
the bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put a
stop to the persecution,--that they in fact made Christianity a religio
licita, and that for the first time. The right of the Christians as a
body (the corpus Christianorum) to hold property is recognized in this
rescript, and this involves the legal recognition of that body.
Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the "bishops," which implies a
recognition of the organization of the Church. See the article of
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
passage.

[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
14.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 14

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
correct.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 15

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
reflection.

4. When he came out from the tribunal, Theotecnus, [2291] the bishop
there, took him aside and conversed with him, and taking his hand led
him into the church. And standing with him within, in the sanctuary, he
raised his cloak a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by his
side; and at the same time he placed before him the Scripture of the
divine Gospels, and told him to choose which of the two he wished. And
without hesitation he reached forth his right hand, and took the divine
Scripture. "Hold fast then," says Theotecnus to him, "hold fast to God,
and strengthened by him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen, and
go in peace."

5. Immediately on his return the herald cried out calling him to the
tribunal, for the appointed time was already completed. And standing
before the tribunal, and manifesting greater zeal for the faith,
immediately, as he was, he was led away and finished his course by
death.
__________________________________________________________________

[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 16

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
martyrdom.

[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 17

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 18

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

1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an
account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the
woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel,
[2297] received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came
from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that
remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain
there.

2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house,
a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if
she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made
of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending
his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself,
[2298] is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the
brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to
our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the
city.

4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were
benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have
learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of
Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, [2299] the ancients being
accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to
pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as
deliverers.
__________________________________________________________________

[2296] This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue
of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (H. E. V. 21)
and Philostorgius (H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was destroyed by the
Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks (Eccles. Hist., Harper's ed. I. p.
70), "Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been
erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely
interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on account of a soteri or theo
appearing in the inscription." There can be no doubt of Eusebius'
honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that the statue commemorated
something quite different from that which Christian tradition claimed.
Upon this whole chapter, see Heinichen's Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698
sq.

[2297] See Matt. ix. 20 sq.

[2298] hou para tois posin epi tes steles autes. This is commonly
translated "at his feet, upon the pedestal"; but, as Heinichen remarks,
in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown
upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating
stele "pedestal." Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew in loco,
maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a representation upon the
base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But this interpretation, as
Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the use of epi in the sense
of "near" or "beside," we have numerous examples (see the instances
given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, s.v.).

[2299] Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress
Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of
images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to
idolatry. In consequence of this disapproval he fell into great
disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited
by the iconoclasts at the second Council of 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 19

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 20

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
chapter.

[2308] That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the
time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year
cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single
sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by
the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the
third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already
in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c.) had not come into
general use in the Church until later than this time. The Nicene
Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency, but it had apparently
not yet come into use in the Church. In fact, the first Christian to
make use of it for the computation of Easter, so far as we know, was
Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of Laodicea (see below, chap. 32,
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 21

The Occurrences at Alexandria.

1. Peace had but just been restored when he returned to Alexandria;
[2310] but as sedition and war broke out again, rendering it impossible
for him to oversee all the brethren, separated in different places by
the insurrection, at the feast of the passover, as if he were still an
exile from Alexandria, he addressed them again by letter. [2311]

2. And in another festal epistle written later to Hierax, [2312] a
bishop in Egypt, he mentions the sedition then prevailing in
Alexandria, as follows:

"What wonder is it that it is difficult for me to communicate by
letters with those who live far away, when it is beyond my power even
to reason with myself, or to take counsel for my own life?

3. Truly I need to send letters to those who are as my own bowels,
[2313] dwelling in one home, and brethren of one soul, and citizens of
the same church; but how to send them I cannot tell. For it would be
easier for one to go, not only beyond the limits of the province, but
even from the East to the West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria
itself.

4. For the very heart of the city is more intricate and impassable than
that great and trackless desert which Israel traversed for two
generations. And our smooth and waveless harbors have become like the
sea, divided and walled up, through which Israel drove and in whose
highway the Egyptians were overwhelmed. For often from the slaughters
there committed they appear like the Red Sea.

5. And the river which flows by the city has sometimes seemed drier
than the waterless desert, and more parched than that in which Israel,
as they passed through it, so suffered for thirst, that they cried out
against Moses, and the water flowed for them from the steep rock,
[2314] through him who alone doeth wonders.

6. Again it has overflowed so greatly as to flood all the surrounding
country, and the roads and the fields; threatening to bring back the
deluge of water that occurred in the days of Noah. And it flows along,
polluted always with blood and slaughter and drownings, as it became
for Pharaoh through the agency of Moses, when he changed it into blood,
and it stank. [2315]

7. And what other water could purify the water which purifies
everything? How could the ocean, so great and impassable for men, if
poured into it, cleanse this bitter sea? Or how could the great river
which flowed out of Eden, if it poured the four heads into which it is
divided into the one of Geon, [2316] wash away this pollution?

8. Or when can the air poisoned by these noxious exhalations become
pure? For such vapors arise from the earth, and winds from the sea, and
breezes from the river, and mists from the harbors, that the dews are,
as it were, discharges from dead bodies putrefying in all the elements
around us.

9. Yet men wonder and cannot understand whence these continuous
pestilences; whence these severe sicknesses; whence these deadly
diseases of all kinds; whence this various and vast human destruction;
why this great city no longer contains as many inhabitants, from tender
infants to those most advanced in life, as it formerly contained of
those whom it called hearty old men. But the men from forty to seventy
years of age were then so much more numerous that their number cannot
now be filled out, even when those from fourteen to eighty years are
enrolled and registered for the public allowance of food.

10. And the youngest in appearance have become, as it were, of equal
age with those who formerly were the oldest. But though they see the
race of men thus constantly diminishing and wasting away, and though
their complete destruction is increasing and advancing, they do not
tremble."
__________________________________________________________________

[2310] This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late
in the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3).

[2311] This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his
scattered flock is no longer extant.

[2312] Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.

[2313] cf. Philemon, vers. 12.

[2314] ek petras akrotomou. The adjective is an addition of Dionysius'
own. The LXX of Ex. xvii. 6 has only petra, "rock."

[2315] epozesas; the same word which is used in the LXX of Ex. vii. 21.

[2316] Geon; LXX (Gen. ii. 13), Geon; Heb. G+uiJ+X+W+N%; A.V. and R.V.,
Gihon.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter 21

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 perfec