Dionysius of Alexandria and Companions

ON SS. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA AND COMPANIONS: FAUSTUS AND GAIUS AND PETER AND PAUL AND FOUR OTHERS, BISHOP AND MARTYRS AT ALEXANDRIA AND PERHAPS ELSEWHERE IN EGYPT,

ABOUT THE YEAR 265, AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Faustus, M., at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Gaius, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Peter, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Paul, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Four others, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt.

BY C. B.

§ I. Why St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, is given today; the memory of his holy Companions in the sacred Fasti; the place and time of his happy departure from life.

In the reformed Roman Martyrology this announcement is inscribed for today: On the same day (the third of October), of the holy martyrs Dionysius, Faustus, Gaius, Peter, Paul and four others, St. Dionysius, inscribed today in the Roman Martyrology, who, having first suffered much under Decius, at length under Valerian, after being long harassed with torments by the governor Aemilianus, merited the palm of martyrdom. These nine Saints, of whom five are named and four are left anonymous, I find inserted for this day in no ancient sacred Fasti of the Latins at all; but the most learned reformers of the Roman Martyrology without doubt took them from the Sirletian Menology. Baronius himself, one of them, indicates this not obscurely in the Annotations with which he illustrated it. The Greeks too, he says, treat of these (the Saints contained in the announcement of the present Roman Martyrology just adduced) on this same day (the third of October), in the Menology (namely the Sirletian), in these words: The heavenly birthday of the holy martyr Dionysius and his eight Companions. He, under the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, being brought before the governor Aemilianus and persevering in the confession of Christ, is first condemned to exile, and proscribed, and stoned; suffering more torments than he had once suffered in Libya under Decius. Shut up, therefore, in a squalid place with Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, who with him had endured the same punishments for twelve years, he was consummated in the confession of Christ. St. Dionysius, who is here, and so also he who is commemorated above in the present Roman Martyrology, is none other than

that great Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria in Egypt.

[2] This is clearly evident from two letters of St. Dionysius himself, bishop of Alexandria, is none other than Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. of which one was written against a certain Germanus, a bishop of that time who was disparaging the Saint, and the other to Domitius and Didymus. For in these letters, of which Eusebius exhibits two excellent Fragments in his Ecclesiastical History, the one in book 6, chapter 40, the other in book 7, chapter XI, St. Dionysius sets out what befell him in the persecution of Decius, and indicates that his companions and associates in these things were Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul; so that the announcement of the Sirletian Menology adduced above has been drawn from the two cited chapters of Eusebius, and so that the Dionysius to whom it joins those very Companions of his sufferings is none other than that great Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Moreover, in the other Fragment of the letter written against Germanus, which Eusebius likewise exhibits in book 7, chapter XI of the Ecclesiastical History, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, himself also sets out what he suffered under Valerian. Compare it with today's announcement of the Sirletian Menology, and you will at once see that whatever this affirms its Dionysius suffered under Valerian is taken from the Fragment of the letter just cited, so that it designates none other than Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. Add that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, is found on no other day in the Sirletian Menology; and since it is not likely that this most holy and equally most celebrated Man is commemorated nowhere in it, there is no doubt that this is done today. What makes me wholly persuaded of it is also the manuscript Menaea of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, to be cited several times below, which announce St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, today with the added title ἀρχιεπισκόπου ἀλεξανδρεῖας, and so designate him most plainly.

[3] Furthermore, although, as is established from what has already been said, the Dionysius and therefore he is given here today with his holy Companions joined to him, inserted today in the Roman Martyrology is none other than Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, this Saint is nevertheless marked again, more expressly, in the same Roman Martyrology on the 17th day of November, though without the Companions with whom he is commemorated today. The same thing happens to St. Faustus on the 19th day of November. For this Faustus marked there, as will become manifest from what is to be said, is not distinct from today's Faustus. Moreover, Faustus and Gaius, whom it celebrates today with Dionysius, Peter and Paul, it commemorates anew on the following day with SS. Eusebius, Chaeremon and Lucius. Hence someone might perhaps not undeservedly require greater accuracy in the Roman Martyrology. Our Du Sollier, in the Usuard illustrated by him, at the 17th day of November, thinks that the most learned reformers of the Roman Martyrology perhaps suffered a lapse of memory, when they bring forward again on the 17th of November St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, whom they had already announced on the 3rd day of October. But I think this came about not from a lapse of memory, but rather from the fact that those men, however most perspicacious otherwise, did not here sufficiently perceive that it is one and the same Dionysius who was bishop of the city of Alexandria in Egypt and is inscribed on the 3rd day of October in the Sirletian Menology. From the identity not being sufficiently perceived, too, I think it came about that the same most learned men repeated the announcement of SS. Gaius and Faustus. And indeed, as regards St. Dionysius, nothing occurs in the Sirletian announcement of him on the 3rd day of October from which you could gather whether the discourse is about St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, unless you diligently compare it with its source, already assigned by me, in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. However that may be, it suffices for me that the great Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, is inscribed today in the Roman Martyrology, for me to treat this Saint today together with the holy Companions joined to him, although in the Passed-over of the 14th day of September he was already referred to the 17th of November. I begin from these, so that afterwards I may more conveniently treat whatever pertains to St. Dionysius alone, without being forced to interrupt the series of the matters to be narrated.

[4] [who, besides, are inscribed with St. Dionysius in the printed Menaea of the Greeks,] To the Sirletian Menology and the present Roman Martyrology, in which, as we have shown, St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, is inscribed today together with SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter, Paul and four other anonymous Saints, other sacred Fasti are further added, among which the great printed Menaea of the Greeks hold not the lowest place. These also enumerate SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, to whom they further join four anonymous ones, together with St. Dionysius, and celebrate them with a brief elogium; the little verses placed before it express by name St. Dionysius alone, leaving his eight holy Companions anonymous, of whom however the elogium placed beneath names four. Here they are, with a Latin version added:

Διονύσιος σὺν συνάθλων νῦν ὀκτάδι, Ζόφου μετάστας, φωτὸς οἰκεῖ χωρίον.

Dionysius now with eight fellow-soldiers, The gloom removed, inhabits the place of light.

Allusion is made here without doubt to the squalid and dark place in which St. Dionysius, shut up with SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, is asserted in the elogium placed beneath the recited verses to have ended his life in a glorious confession of Christ; which, however, I do not transcribe here, since both in this and in other circumstances it agrees exactly with the Sirletian elogium recited at number 1. Nor do I now inquire whether the elogia of the Menaea, of the Sirletian Menology, and of the other sacred Fasti which we have already produced or are about to produce, agree altogether with exact truth; a more convenient place for doing this will be given below.

[5] to the manuscript Menaea of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, To the printed Menaea of the Greeks, from which I have already brought forward whatever pertains to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and his holy Companions, I subjoin Fasti of the same name, namely the manuscript Menaea of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, cited already above, of which we have a transcript. These, after a brief announcement placed first, likewise adorn our Saints with an elogium, and indeed a somewhat longer one; but at the same time they disagree not a little with the printed Menaea. For they neither set out the holy Companions of St. Dionysius in a definite number, nor enumerate Peter and Paul by name among them. I do not doubt, however, that they include these two Saints too in the indefinite number of St. Dionysius's Companions, which is all they exhibit. I think so because both in the elogium with which they celebrate the Saints and in the brief announcement prefixed to the elogium they frame their discourse, as it appears to me at least, about all those Saints who accompanied St. Dionysius either in the flight which he undertook under Decius by divine command, or in the exile which he underwent under Valerian, or at least who endured with him the bitterness of both persecutions raised against the Christians by those two emperors. The said elogium, which I have turned from Greek into Latin, together with the preliminary annotation, likewise rendered in Latin, I transcribe here, so that, after a comparison has been made with the two chapters of Eusebius's History cited at number 2, the learned reader may be able to pass his own judgment on this matter.

[6] Here it is: Ἄθλησις τοῦ ἁγίου μαρτύρος Διονυσίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Αλεξανδρείας καὶ τῆς συνόδου ἀυτοῦ Γαίου, whose elogium, in which they celebrate the Saints, in Greek Φαυστοῦ, Ευσεβίου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. οὗτος ἦν ἐπὶ τὴς βασιλείας οὐαλεριανοῦ, τὸν διωγμὸν κινησάντος καὶ κατὰ πάντων μὲν τῶν Χριστιανῶν, κατ᾽ εξαίρετον δὲ κατὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων, οὒς ἐδόκει πάντας ὑπὸ τὴν χεῖρα ποιῆσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ. Αιμιλιανὸς δὲ τις Αλεξανδρείας ἡγεμὼν κρατήσας ἀυτὸν βίῳ καὶ λόγῳ κεκοσμημένον ὄντα διδασκαλικὸντε πάνυ καὶ τής ορθῆς ἀντεχόμενον πίστεως, σὺν Φαύστω διακόνω καὶ λοιποῖς, καὶ πολλὰ καταναγκάσας θῦσαι τοῖς ειδώλοις καὶ ταῖς βασάνοις ἀπαλλαγῆναι καὶ μὴ πείσας, εἰς ἐξορίαν παραπέμπει, πἀσης ἀυτοὺς κωλύων συνόδου καὶ συναγωγῆς καὶ ὁμιλίας προς τοὺς συνήθεις. Απαχθεὶς δὲ ἐν τῇ Κεφρῇ καὶ διδάσκων τον λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐλιθεύζετο ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, καὶ μαθὼν ταῦτα Αιμιλιανὸς ἐκέλευσεν αποιχισθῆναι ἀυτὸν είς τραχυτέραν χώραν ληστῶν καὶ μιαιφόνων πεπληρωμένην ἀνδρῶν, ἐν ῇ πολλοὺς ὑφέστη πειρασμοὺς· οὐ μόνον δὲ τότε τοιαῦτα ἔπασχε, ἀλλὰ καὶ έν τοῖς Δεκίου χρόνοις. Ευσέβιος δὲ καὶ Χαρίμων διάκονοι παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐνδυναμωθέντες καὶ τοὺς ἐν φυλακαῖς ἐπισκεπτόμενοι καὶ θάπτοντες τὰ τῶν μαρτύρων λειψάνα, πολλὰς βασάνους ὑπέμειναν. Ὁ γοῦν μακάριος Διονυσίος διαφόροις ὁμολογίαις καὶ κινδύνοις καὶ ἐξορίαις ἐγκαρτερήσας μέχρι δωδεκάτου ἔτους τῆς Γαλλιήνου βασιλείας ἐτελέυτησεν ἐν τῃ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογίᾳ. Φαῦστος δὲ ὁ σὺν ἀυτῶ διάκονος διήρκεσε μέχρι τοῦ κατὰ Μαξιμίνον διωγμοῦ καὶ γηραιὸς κομιδῆ γενόμενος ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσι μαρτυρικῶς τὴν κεφαλήν ἀποτέμνεται, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν οἱ μέν ταῖς βασανοῖς ἐναπέτανον, οἱ δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἀνακηρύττοντες ἐτελέυτησαν.

[7] Receive now the Latin version. The contest of the holy martyr Dionysius, and is exhibited here in Latin, archbishop of Alexandria, and also of Gaius, Faustus, Eusebius, and the rest who were of his company. He flourished under the rule of Valerian, who stirred up a persecution against all Christians indeed, but most of all against the bishops, all of whom he wished to have obedient to himself. And a certain Aemilianus, prefect of Alexandria, seized him, who was surpassingly excellent in manner of life, eloquence and skill in teaching, and moreover adhered to the true faith, together with Faustus the deacon and the rest; and when they had been greatly pressed and not moved to sacrifice to idols and so escape torments, he sent them into exile, every assembly and conversation with their familiars being forbidden. And being led away (Dionysius, that is) to Cephro, and teaching the word of God, he was assailed with stones by the populace. Aemilianus, having learned of these things, ordered him to move to a harsher region, full of robbers and bloody men, where he endured many hardships: and not only did he suffer these things then, but also in the time of Decius. And Eusebius and Charimon * the deacons, strengthened by God, visiting the captives and burying the relics of the martyrs, endured many grievous things. Blessed Dionysius, therefore, having patiently persevered in various confessions and perils and exiles up to the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, departed from among the living in the confession of Christ: but Faustus his deacon remained among the living up to the persecution of Maximinus, and having become very old, confessing the faith amid torments, was beheaded: as regards the rest, some died under torments, and others died proclaiming God.

[8] and are inscribed in other sacred Fasti: Go now, learned reader, to the two chapters of Eusebius cited more than once above, and having made a comparison of them with the elogium just recited, you will see, as I think, that in it the discourse is about all those who, whether in the persecution of Decius or in that of Valerian, were associates and companions of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in hardships and labours. Wherefore, since among these, as is clear from what was said at number 2, Peter and Paul must certainly be counted, there can be no doubt that the Ambrosian Menaea include these too under the indefinite number of St. Dionysius's Companions which they exhibit. Nor is there reason why anyone should therefore think that Chaeremon

who is to be given by us on the following day, and Eusebius, already given on the third day of July with St. Anatolius, the companions joined here to St. Dionysius by the Ambrosian Menaea together with SS. Gaius and Faustus, are likewise contained among the four anonymous Saints whom the sacred Fasti produced above, before the Ambrosian Menaea, commemorate with St. Dionysius and his four other named Companions. For the elogia with which all these celebrate our Saints draw their first origin from the two chapters of Eusebius cited more than once already; and in these, besides SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, eight or nine others besides occur expressly named, and among these Eusebius and Chaeremon, all of whom, while Decius and Valerian were persecuting the Christians, were of the company or even of the clergy of St. Dionysius. Wherefore, although there is no doubt that under our four anonymous Companions of St. Dionysius four likewise of those eight or nine who are named are comprehended, yet who these may be cannot be declared for certain. However that may be, the Ambrosian Menaea celebrate all our Saints, anonymous as well as named, with a general commemoration, which suffices for them to be numbered here among the sacred Fasti that mark them. I come now to the remaining Fasti in which the memory of St. Dionysius's holy Companions is inscribed. Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cythera, in his Menology written in the present-day vernacular tongue of the Greeks, adheres closely to the printed Menaea and teaches nothing different from them.

[9] [in two, however, all are said, with an arena even added, to have been crowned with martyrdom, wrongly:] Chastelain simply turns the elogium of the present Roman from the Latin idiom into French, and rightly advises, by a little note placed in the margin, that St. Dionysius is Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who is inserted again in the Roman Martyrology on the 17th, and St. Faustus the martyr Faustus who is inserted again on the 19th of November. Galesini dissents from all the Fasti mentioned so far. For, ascribing a place to his announcement, which is not done in these, he announces the Saints in Greece. Since, however, he probably does this only because he thinks that they, as inscribed in the Menaea and the Sirletian Menology, enjoy ecclesiastical cult among the Greeks, he cannot indeed be convicted of error for certain here; but since he further affirms that St. Dionysius and all his holy Companions endured martyrdom, in this assertion at least, as will become evident from what is to be said, he most certainly strays from the truth, unless perhaps, which however does not appear, he means nothing other than that our Saints, spurning the threats and torments of the tyrants, bravely confessed the faith, but did not shed their blood for it. Ferrari and Tamayo likewise attribute the palm of martyrdom to St. Dionysius and his holy Companions; and they do it indeed in such words that they can be understood only of martyrdom in the strict sense. Moreover the former establishes the arena of their martyrdom at Rome in Italy, the latter at Contrebia in Spain, which second error is by far the gravest of both. Tamayo indeed, as he himself indicates in the Notes to his Spanish Martyrology, learned that the Saints suffered in Spain from the adversaria of Julian, archpriest of Toledo; but these are nothing but mere fabrications, very often overthrown by our predecessors and other learned men, and deservedly exploded. As for Ferrari, he indeed at the end of the elogium with which he adorns St. Dionysius and his Companions cites Bede, Usuard and Ado by name; but these nowhere affirm that all those Saints underwent martyrdom, and moreover that this happened at Rome.

[10] And indeed I do not see by what reasoning, or relying on what sufficiently firm foundation, those older martyrologists could have asserted this. crowned wrongly For that all our Saints were crowned with martyrdom neither at Rome nor elsewhere becomes plain even from the place and manner of death alone by which St. Dionysius departed from the living. He, namely, as we shall most clearly prove below, after the peace restored to the Church by Gallienus, ended this mortal life at Alexandria in Egypt by a happy and tranquil death. With what appearance of truth, then, can he be said to have been crowned with martyrdom, and that at Rome? By the Greeks indeed he is honoured with the title of Ιερομάρτυρος, and not undeservedly; but this is done not because he is a martyr in the strict sense, or because he fell by the sword of persecutors, but because, having twice been held for the Christian faith and driven into exile, he endured for the glorious confession of Christ calamities no fewer than very many martyrs who truly gained the palm of martyrdom by the sword. If in a like reasoning and sense, as I think is done in the announcement of the present Roman produced at number 1, one should likewise wish to call absolutely all St. Dionysius's Companions martyrs, I shall not greatly object. For although nothing is available by which I could show that they all met a violent death for the faith by iron or fire, there is nevertheless no doubt that they endured many hardships for the confession of Christ.

[11] Faustus, namely, Gaius, Peter and Paul, as the announcement of the Sirletian Menology adduced at number 1 teaches, of Faustus alone had endured twelve years with St. Dionysius when he departed from the living in the confession of Christ the Lord. And although, as I shall show below, the Sirletian Menology here needs correction, it nevertheless rightly hints that the Saints suffered very many things with St. Dionysius. For (consult the two chapters of Eusebius's History often cited above) being seized with St. Dionysius by soldiers sent for the purpose, in the flight which they had undertaken when the persecution of Decius arose, they were subjected, as is most likely, to very many calumnies: and even though they were snatched from their hands by the Mareotes who came upon them, they afterwards, while the persecution of Decius lasted, beyond all doubt endured the gravest hardships. And these things indeed pertain to all four named Companions of St. Dionysius; of Paul nothing occurs by name: but as regards Peter and Gaius, these, after they had been snatched from the hands of the soldiers by whom they had been taken, during the persecution of Decius, not of Valerian, as Rufinus would have it, remained shut up, bereft of the other brethren, in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya, which was three days' journey distant from Paraetonium, so that they then most certainly underwent very many, and those very grievous, calamities. Nothing else is known about these two latter Companions of St. Dionysius either from Eusebius or from other trustworthy documents, so that the martyrologists cited above wrongly affirm that these and St. Peter, however much they may perhaps be martyrs in the strict sense, ended their life with their blood shed for the faith. Faustus indeed obtained the palm of martyrdom, his head being cut off; but this does not suffice for St. Dionysius and his other Companions to be reckoned without doubt among the martyrs. But let these things suffice that have been disputed concerning the asserted and unproved martyrdom of SS. Dionysius, Gaius, Peter and Paul. We must now treat of Faustus, whose martyrdom alone is beyond controversy.

[12] who probably is different from the Faustus This Saint, somewhat more celebrated than Peter, Paul and Gaius, the three other Companions of St. Dionysius whom the sacred Fasti already reviewed express by name, is marked again, as I said above, in the present Roman, in which he is inscribed today and on the following day as well, on the 19th day of November. But it may moreover now be doubted whether in the same present Roman the memory of St. Faustus does not recur anew on the 26th day of the said November. For there this announcement is set: At Alexandria, the heavenly birthday of St. Peter, bishop of the same city, who, being adorned with all virtues, was beheaded by command of Galerius Maximianus (rather, Maximinus). There suffered also at Alexandria, in the same persecution, the holy martyrs Faustus the presbyter, Didius and Ammonius, and likewise Phileas, Hesychius, Pachomius and Theodore, Egyptian bishops, with six hundred and sixty others, whom the sword of persecution bore up to heaven. Since, however, as we shall presently show, St. Faustus, who with St. Dionysius in the times of the persecutions of Decius and Valerian bravely confessed the Christian faith while still a deacon, having become very aged, prolonged his life even to the persecution of Diocletian, it seems possible to doubt whether he is not one and the same as the namesake mentioned in the announcement just adduced, the companion in the passion of Didius, Ammonius and Peter, bishop of Alexandria; who, a deacon under Dionysius, may have been ordained presbyter by one of his successors, and at last, worn out with old age, obtained the crown of martyrdom under Maximinus. There is certainly reason, as it appears to me at least, why one should here remain hesitant and doubtful.

[13] inscribed also in the present Roman on 26 November; Our Faustus nevertheless seems to be different from the Faustus who is inserted in the present Roman on the 26th day of November, because the latter is joined with companions altogether different from the Companions with whom our Faustus is inscribed more than once in the sacred Fasti on other days. Moreover Eusebius, in the Valois edition, which I always understand here unless I indicate otherwise, commemorates in book 8, chapter 13 the martyrdom of Faustus the presbyter who suffered with Peter of Alexandria under Maximinus, and yet does not hint by a single word that this is our Faustus, who, as we shall presently see, he had narrated in book 7, chapter XI to have consummated martyrdom, already very aged and almost decrepit in his years, by having his head cut off. Hence it comes about that it appears more probable to me at least that St. Faustus, the companion of Peter of Alexandria in martyrdom, is distinct from our St. Faustus, and so that the latter is not announced anew in the present Roman on the 26th day of November. For the rest, nothing else occurs that helps to establish the distinction between the two Faustuses. But however that may be, certainly the Faustus inscribed in the modern Roman on the nineteenth day of November is, as I shall presently show, not distinct from our Faustus. In order, then, that I may set out accurately the things that concern him, I must record whatever I find concerning him, consigned to writing and worthy of mention, whether in the History of Eusebius or elsewhere. Faustus, who is inserted in the present Roman on the 19th day of November, and who therefore is not distinct from ours, is celebrated on the same day also by the author of the Little Roman, by Ado, Usuard, Molanus, Greven, Maurolico, the last of whom wrongly affirms that the Saint was beheaded at Rome under Decius. Galesini perhaps means the same or something like it. Certainly otherwise I do not see why he should announce Faustus at Rome. I do not think it necessary to bring forward here the several texts of these martyrologists, since they supply nothing that is not contained in the longer announcement of Ado, which I transcribe here entire, because it exhibits a compendium of the matters concerning the Saint.

[14] It runs thus: On the same day (the 19th of November), the heavenly birthday of St. Faustus, martyr. is certain, To him so much confidence and magnanimity was given through the grace of God that, when absolutely no one was permitted to approach the brethren who were held in prison for the sake of humanity and service, he together with his colleague Eusebius unceasingly both visited them and ministered what was necessary. And when the fury of the governor grew day by day, slaughtering some, afflicting others with punishments and various kinds of torture, killing them with the squalor of the prison and the weight of chains, and above all commanding that no one at all should approach them, so that starvation too might be applied as another kind of torment: nevertheless God granted to this Deacon and his colleague

this grace, that, against the will of all, access to the confessors of Christ was not denied them. Continuing, therefore, as a very aged confessor and full of days, blessed Faustus, his martyrdom completed, was consummated by the cutting off of his head. This whole elogium, long as it is, has been drawn word for word from book 7, chapter 10 of Eusebius as interpolated by Rufinus, as will be plain from a comparison of the two. Yet it contains nothing about St. Faustus that is not also nearly comprehended in the genuine Eusebius. And first, indeed, he too teaches most clearly in book 7, chapter XI that St. Faustus, already worn out with old age, carried off the palm of martyrdom by having his head cut off. It must be known further, he says, … that Faustus, … who at that time became illustrious by the title of confession together with Dionysius (the bishop of Alexandria, namely), was reserved to the persecution of our own time, and, already very aged and almost decrepit, in our age consummated martyrdom by having his head cut off. Thus Eusebius; from which not only is the martyrdom of St. Faustus made certain, but it also becomes undoubted that St. Faustus inserted today in the Roman Martyrology, since he too (see number 2) was drawn from the chapter of Eusebius just cited, is not different, as I advised I would show, from the St. Faustus who is likewise inserted in the Roman Martyrology on the 19th day of November.

[15] Let us now weigh whether the other assertions of Ado's announcement concerning this our holy Martyr are likewise contained in Eusebius. that, the other things having been set out which are recorded of St. Faustus According to it, St. Faustus, while the persecution of the tyrants raged against the Christians, frequently visited the faithful detained in prisons for the cause of the faith, helped them with what aid he could, and in that office of Christian charity had as colleague and helper Eusebius, a deacon, he himself also a Deacon. Now the historian Eusebius in book 7, chapter XI supplies, as I have already shown above, a Fragment of the letter written by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Domitius and Didymus: and in this the Saint records thus: But in the city (of Alexandria) there hid themselves, in order to visit the brethren (the Christians detained in prison for the cause of the faith, as is clear from the context) secretly, of the presbyters: Maximus, Dioscorus, Demetrius and Lucius; … and of the deacons, those surviving after the ones who were consumed by disease, Faustus, Eusebius, Chaeremon. From these words it is fittingly gathered that St. Faustus the deacon visited the Christian captives in the time of persecution, and in that office had St. Eusebius, likewise a deacon, as his associate and helper; so that here again Ado's announcement does not dissent from Eusebius. Furthermore, St. Eusebius the deacon, who both in Ado's announcement and in the cited Fragment of the letter of St. Dionysius of Alexandria is asserted to have visited with St. Faustus the Christians detained in prison, was afterwards, as Eusebius expressly affirms in the chapter just cited, bishop of Laodicea in Syria. Hence I do not see why our Du Sollier, on the third day of July, in treating St. Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, and his predecessor St. Eusebius, affirms that this latter Saint is nowhere inscribed in the Little Roman, which, as I have already shown, celebrates St. Faustus on the 19th day of November.

[16] in Eusebius, For the said Little Roman has on the said day: And of Faustus the deacon and of Eusebius his colleague, visitors of the martyrs; and this announcement, as Du Sollier himself observes in the Usuard illustrated by him at the same day, undoubtedly flows from Rufinus's Eusebius, from which, as we have advised, the longer announcement of Ado already given was taken. Wherefore, since the St. Eusebius who is celebrated in Ado's longer announcement, and so in Rufinus's Eusebius, is none other than St. Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Laodicea in Syria, there is no doubt that this same St. Eusebius is also commemorated in the adduced announcement of the Little Roman, in which he is honoured together with Faustus with the title of Visitor of the Martyrs, because both, as we have seen, frequently visited Christians detained in prison for the cause of the faith. Perhaps Du Sollier only meant that St. Eusebius is nowhere commemorated by the compiler of the Little Roman under the title of bishop with St. Anatolius, which is true. But let it suffice to have noted these things in passing. I dispatch the remaining matters that concern St. Faustus. St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in the letter against a certain bishop by the name of Germanus, another Fragment of which, already cited before, Eusebius exhibits in book 7, chapter XI, expresses by name the companions in whose company he approached Aemilianus, prefect of Alexandria, when the persecution of Valerian arose, and among them enumerates St. Faustus the deacon. I came, he says, to Aemilianus, not alone, but accompanied by Maximus my fellow presbyter, and Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon, deacons. He then adds that he, with the same companions, and moreover another by the name of Marcellus, after they had together confessed the Christian faith before Aemilianus, was relegated to a certain village near the desert, whose name was Cephro. That the discourse here is about our St. Faustus is given to be understood from the words of Eusebius recited at number 14, in which St. Faustus, and he indeed ours, as is clear from what was said before, is asserted to have become illustrious by the title of confession together with St. Dionysius. For the rest, I find nothing more about St. Faustus. It remains that we discuss the time and place at which he was crowned with martyrdom, and the other Companions of Dionysius died.

[17] is shown to have taken place at the beginning of the 4th century: If our Faustus were not distinct from the Faustus mentioned by us above, who obtained the palm of martyrdom together with blessed Peter, bishop of Alexandria, slain at Alexandria by order of Maximinus in the year 311 (see our Du Sollier on the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 181), we should already have ascertained both the epoch and the arena of the martyrdom endured by our Faustus, and could refer it to the emperor Maximinus, if it were permitted to trust the Ambrosian Menaea (see number 6). But since, as we have shown, a distinction more probably lies between the two Faustuses, and the credit of the Menaea is slight, another way must be entered upon by which I may more fittingly define in what place and about what year our Faustus was made a martyr by having his head cut off. Eusebius, in the words recited at number 14 and already cited here more than once, asserts that St. Faustus, who became illustrious by the title of confession together with St. Dionysius, and who is therefore ours, carried off the palm of martyrdom in his own age by having his head cut off. Wherefore, since Eusebius, born when the third century was already growing old, about the year 275, exchanged life for death in the year 340; and since in the interval between these two extremes a double persecution raged against the Christians, the one which, begun by Diocletian in the year 303, came to an end at length in the year 313, the other which, set in motion by Licinius in 319, was utterly extinguished in the year 324, when he was conquered by Constantine the Great; there is left not the least doubt that St. Faustus was crowned with martyrdom between the year 302 and 325. Yet I think it more probably happened between the year 302 and 314, for this reason, that I do not find that the Licinian persecution raged in Egypt; while it appears likely that Faustus suffered at Alexandria in Egypt. For since he was a deacon at Alexandria, he probably did not depart, when a new persecution arose afresh, in which he was struck with the sword, from that city in which he had succoured to the best of his strength the Christians detained in prison under Decius, being then very aged, and not sufficiently fit, on account of his very advanced age, for bearing the hardships of flight. Moreover it is also likely that the holy Man remained at Alexandria, however much the tyrants raged, in order to help the Christians with timely aid, as he had done in the Decian persecution, to refresh them with pious admonitions, and to animate them to constancy by his example.

[18] And thus not only has the time of the martyrdom which St. Faustus underwent before which probably all the other been explored, but the place also becomes known, at least in some fashion. As now regards SS. Gaius, Peter and Paul, just as, as we have shown, it is doubtful whether they ended their life by martyrdom or by another kind of death, so it likewise remains doubtful whether they closed their last day at Alexandria in Egypt or elsewhere. Since nevertheless they too were of the retinue of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and probably also of his clergy, I would prefer to place their death at Alexandria, or at least, in a broader way, in Egypt, rather than elsewhere. Certainly no foundation is available by which they could be believed to have died either in Spain or at Rome, as we have hinted above. Furthermore, just as no one can define the place for certain, so neither can anyone define the year in which they died. If the announcement of the Sirletian Menology produced at number 1 were of assured credit, Gaius, Peter and Paul would not have departed from the living before the year 265. For the said announcement ends in this manner: Shut up, therefore (St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria), in a squalid place with Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, who had endured together with him for twelve years, he was consummated in the confession of Christ the Lord. By these words it is hinted that St. Dionysius died while he was still shut up in a squalid place with SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, and so that all of these outlived St. Dionysius. Wherefore, since he died not earlier than the year 265, it will be necessary that Gaius, Peter and Paul (for of Faustus I have already spoken) did not die before this year either. But that clause of the said announcement involves more than one error. For first it insinuates that St. Dionysius died while still shut up in a squalid place; and this, since the Saint departed from the living after peace had been restored to the Church by Gallienus, is destitute of all likelihood whatever. Moreover it says that SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul endured with St. Dionysius for twelve years, that is, the hardships and calamities, as is clear from the context, of the persecutions with which the tyrants most wretchedly afflicted the holy Church of God while St. Dionysius was already bishop of Alexandria.

[19] Companions of St. Dionysius died, St. Peter too, who from Peter, But at that time only four persecutions were raised against the Christians, namely the first by the raging idolatrous populace of Alexandria, the second by Decius, the third by Gallus, the fourth by Valerian, which also, when he had been captured by the Persians, was continued in Egypt by Macrianus. Wherefore, since the last of these persecutions lasted about five years, and the three earlier ones, taken together, only about four years, the hardships of persecution which Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul sustained with St. Dionysius do not fill a space of twelve years. The Sirletian announcement so often cited thus labours here under two blemishes, and therefore it is not of such weight with me that on its credit alone I should believe that SS. Gaius, Peter and Paul did not die before the year 265. But, you will say, about what time then did they die? Since, as is established from what was said before, they followed St. Dionysius when he fled in the Decian persecution, and this, as the common opinion of the learned now holds, raged in the year 250 or towards the end of the preceding one, it is certain that the Saints did not die before the said year 250 or the one immediately preceding. Now since at that time, being probably placed in an ecclesiastical grade, of years as

at least twenty, most probably, I think that their death, lest all three should have to be said to have reached, together with St. Faustus, an almost decrepit age, which appears less likely, is to be attached to the third century, when half of it had already elapsed; nor does anything occur by which I might set it later or define it more certainly. Nevertheless the death, not indeed of all of them, but at least of Peter, would have to be put off to the fourth century, if he is that very Peter who succeeded St. Dionysius in the patriarchate of Alexandria after St. Maximus and St. Theonas. For this Peter (see number 17) obtained the crown of martyrdom at Alexandria in the year 311, his head being cut off. But that our Peter is not that very Peter who was afterwards raised to the episcopate of Alexandria appears beyond doubt.

[20] bishop of Alexandria, is most certainly distinguished. For Eusebius in book 7, chapter XI, having exhibited an excellent Fragment of the letter already cited more than once, in which St. Dionysius mentions at once our St. Peter and St. Maximus the presbyter, afterwards bishop of Alexandria, carefully advises that Maximus is that very one who was afterwards created bishop of Alexandria; and if this had likewise ever happened to our Peter, he would certainly not have passed it over in silence, as he does, since promotion to the patriarchal chair of Alexandria was to be counted to him as no small honour. Moreover our Peter, when he accompanied St. Dionysius in his flight under Decius, was at least twenty years old according to what has already been said. Wherefore, if he is that very Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who underwent martyrdom in the year 311, he would already have been more than eighty when this happened; and this circumstance is little credible for the very reason that absolutely no ancient author testifies in writing that St. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, reached so advanced an age. Add that Eusebius, just cited, does not in the place just quoted mention the martyrdom itself of our Peter, to which that circumstance is referred, while nevertheless in the same place (see what was said at number 14) he also carefully observes that St. Faustus, who became illustrious under Valerian by the title of confession with St. Dionysius, and yet was not afterwards a bishop, was crowned with martyrdom when already very aged and almost decrepit, in his own age, that is, at the beginning of the fourth century. All these things having been weighed, I in no way doubt that our St. Peter is distinct from St. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and I now proceed to treat the matters which pertain to St. Dionysius alone. I shall relate these almost solely from the letters of the Saint himself, of which Eusebius especially has preserved some notable Fragments for us.

* otherwise Chaeremon

§ II. The memory of St. Dionysius in the sacred Fasti, his ecclesiastical cult, the nobility of his family, the region of his birth.

[St. Dionysius, who separately from his holy Companions also, in the Little Roman,] St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a man most celebrated for the fame of his learning and sanctity, whom not a few sacred Fasti, as I showed in the preceding §, celebrate today with SS. Faustus, Gaius, Peter and Paul, not a few sacred Fasti likewise commemorate alone, without any holy Companions joined to him. But they do this neither today nor all on one and the same day. The Menology of the Greeks which, composed by order of Basil Porphyrogenitus, is called the Basilian, sets forth the fourth day of October, the Calendar of the Copts in Job Ludolf the fourteenth day of September, the Abyssinian Hagiology the ninth day of March, as consecrated to the memory of St. Dionysius. The author of the Little Roman, whom Ado, Usuard, and after these a great number of more recent martyrologists followed, chose the nineteenth day of November, and that, as our Du Sollier thinks in the Usuard illustrated by him, solely at his own mere discretion. Nor does it seem doubtful that the compiler of the said Basilian Menology used the same liberty in adopting the fourth day of October; but whether the same is also to be said of the compilers of the Coptic Calendar and the Abyssinian Hagiology I shall inquire below, when I frame my discourse on the day and the year in which our Saint departed from the living. Now, before everything, I observe what it is fitting to observe regarding the said sacred Fasti of the Latins in which the name of St. Dionysius is inscribed separately from his Companions. The announcement of the Little Roman is brief, drawn from the usual source, Rufinus's Eusebius; it runs thus: At Alexandria, of Dionysius the bishop, illustrious in many and frequent confessions, in the times of Valerian and Gallienus.

[22] Ado celebrates the Saint not only with a shorter announcement, which flows almost entirely from the Little Roman, in Ado, whose elogium, which he wove for the Saint here, but also with a longer elogium, which is likewise taken for the greater part from Rufinus's Eusebius (see him, book 7, chapter 10). And although this is not altogether exact, I nevertheless transcribe it here entire, in order that at the very threshold of this Commentary I may offer the reader at least a rough idea of the matters concerning Dionysius; and, lest the true be confused with the false, the doubtful with the certain, I also add two annotations, of which one is mixed in with the text, the other set beneath it. Here it is: At Alexandria, of blessed Dionysius the bishop, sufficiently illustrious in many and frequent confessions, and magnificent through the diversity of his sufferings and torments, in the times of the emperors Valerian and Gallienus. Finally it is related that, when the persecutors were hunting him, as he himself stood before the judge, he answered: Why do you labour in hunting? Take my head, for which you are greatly wearying yourselves, torn from my neck, and carry it as a great gift to your tyrant and emperor. Now the governor was Aemilianus. Before him, when Dionysius proclaimed the one only God, who had made heaven and earth, and said that He was to be adored, but that the others were neither gods nor ought to be adored, he was thrust into exile in a certain fortress of the desert which is called Cefro: chosen chiefly for this, that the inhabitants of the place were gentiles and much given to the superstitions of idols. These at first received the exile Dionysius with a hostile spirit and a sufficiently adverse mind; but afterwards, when little by little through the grace of the Lord he had begun to sow the word of God among them, the greatest part of the fierce and barbarous people, having left their idols, was converted to the true God and subjected to Christ. When this was learned, they transferred him again to another place, near Alexandria indeed, but deserted by inhabitants and almost empty of dwellers.

[23] is given at greater length, These things so far agree with Eusebius and with exact truth, if you except the one reply which the Saint, when he stood before the governor, or rather the prefect, Aemilianus, is asserted to have given to his persecutors. For this neither appears sufficiently likely, nor is it in any way asserted by Eusebius, as will be plain to one who consults him in book 7, chapter XI. Receive now the remaining words of Ado's Elogium: But since there too, on account of the nearness of the city, the people of our faith frequented him, and, as though their shepherd had been recovered, the flock was rendered more joyful and more constant in its contests, again soldiers were sent with a centurion, and they dragged Dionysius himself, and with him Gaius and Peter, bound in chains and afflicted with various tortures, into a certain desert of Libya, and there left them tied in bonds in a most squalid place, lacking every use of humanity, stretched into the desert three days' journey from Paraetonium. At that time also Maximus the presbyter and Dioscorus, Demetrius too and Lucius, and also Faustinus and Aquila, were made sufficiently illustrious and distinguished by the title of confession. Meanwhile blessed Dionysius, having returned to Alexandria, weighed down with old age, rested in peace, having discharged the priesthood for seventeen years. The change of St. Dionysius's exile which Ado here builds up, together with all its circumstances, he learned solely from Eusebius as interpolated by Rufinus. But Rufinus himself seems to have been deceived here, and that indeed from this, that he both took in a foreign sense St. Dionysius's treatment of the change of his exile in the letter written against Germanus, and referred the letter given by the same Saint to Domitius and Didymus to the persecution of Valerian, whereas nevertheless, as we shall show, it ought to be referred to the persecution of Decius.

[24] and it is inserted in other sacred Fasti, Usuard here was more cautious than Ado. For he so contracted the long elogium which the latter wove for the Saint here that he admitted plainly no error. Here are his words too: At Alexandria, of blessed Dionysius the bishop. He, being sufficiently illustrious in many and frequent confessions, and magnificent through the diversity of his sufferings and torments, rested in the times of the emperors Valerian and Gallienus. The present Roman Martyrology, in which, as I advised in the preceding §, St. Dionysius is also inscribed separately from his holy Companions on the seventeenth day of November, differs little from Usuard. For it announces the Saint only thus: At Alexandria, of St. Dionysius the bishop, a man of the highest learning, who, illustrious by many confessions, and magnificent through the diversity of his sufferings and torments, rested, a confessor full of days, in the times of the emperors Valerian and Gallienus. I do not bring forward other more recent martyrologists, since they teach us nothing not drawn from the three classic Martyrologies already cited. Let it suffice to have said that absolutely all who, that is, have woven general sacred Fasti of the Saints have celebrated the memory of Dionysius with unanimous consent, although it was omitted by Notker, Bede and other ancient hagiologists.

[25] And indeed they did this most deservedly. For the Saint enjoyed ecclesiastical cult among the Alexandrians of old, he enjoyed cult of old, and enjoys it today; and he enjoys it even today, not only among the Greeks in the Menaea, but also among the Copts and Abyssinians in the Calendar and the Hagiology cited above. For in the latter the Abyssinian hagiologist venerates the Saint thus on the ninth day of March: Hail to Dionysius, the wisest doctor of all, whom the reading of Paul's epistle converted from error. After he had sustained affliction and exile in his days, he departed today into the heavenly region, to be joined to the company of the archbishops. And the author of the Coptic Calendar sings thus: Hail to thee, Dionysius, our father and patriarch, deservedly surnamed priest. The boys of the Ephesians fell asleep in the time of thy rule; in thy days Mercurius was adjudged to death; and Antony was made a monk. He would better have said, as Du Sollier proves on the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 160, was born. And thus indeed we have ascertained the present cult of the Saint among the Copts and Abyssinians; and that he enjoyed ecclesiastical cult of old among the Alexandrians becomes beyond doubt from the church which once stood at Alexandria consecrated to the name of St. Dionysius. This is clear from St. Epiphanius, heresy 69: for there, near the beginning, he names several churches existing at Alexandria, and among them enumerates the church of St. Dionysius. Here are the words of this holy writer: Certainly there are very many churches at Alexandria … such as the church of Dionysius, of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persea, of Dizya, of Mendius, of Annianus, of Baucalis, and the rest. Nor is there reason why anyone should object that the discourse here is perhaps about the church of a Dionysius distinct from ours; for since in the words just recited, after the church of St. Dionysius, the church of St. Theonas is named immediately, who was likewise bishop of Alexandria, and indeed the successor of St. Dionysius after St. Maximus, it does not seem to be doubted that St. Epiphanius designates a church consecrated to no other Dionysius than ours. Moreover no reason at all occurs why a church consecrated to another than ours should be supposed to have existed at Alexandria

a church we should say.

[26] Furthermore, that our Saint enjoyed ecclesiastical cult of old not only in the Alexandrian Church he is praised by the ancient fathers, but also in the universal Church, these words of St. Athanasius on the doctrine of our Dionysius can serve as an argument of some sort: It is certainly a great argument that they (the Arians) do not speak truly in this, but calumniate the man (St. Dionysius), that neither was he ever condemned by other bishops for impiety detected in him and driven from his episcopate, as they (the Arians) were cast out of the clergy; nor did he withdraw from the Church for the sake of defending a heresy; but he fell asleep piously in her, and his memory has been celebrated until now with the fathers, and has been entered in the roll together with them. Add to these the highest proclamations of praise with which both the said Athanasius, calling him in the place cited a doctor or master of the Church, and the other ancient fathers adorn St. Dionysius, as though in rivalry with one another. Basil, in his canonical epistle to Amphilochius, calls St. Dionysius skilled in the canons, and adorns him with the surname of the Great. The same honourable surname is attributed to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, by St. Maximus in his scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, and by almost all the other ancient fathers, as Valois testifies in his Notes to Eusebius, book 7, in the proem. Hence, then, it becomes certain that our Saint was held in the highest veneration by all these ancient fathers, and accordingly it does not seem to be doubted that among them too he obtained the cult proper to great and holy men. But let these things suffice concerning the Saint's cult; let us now consider from what family this Man, supreme at once in learning and sanctity, derived his origin.

[27] born of a noble family Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, in the letter, or rather the book, against Germanus, relates that he endured deprivations of dignities, contempt of worldly glory, and the scorning of the praises that came from prefects and decurions. Hence it is plain, says Henri de Valois in his Annotations on the aforesaid chapter of Eusebius, that Dionysius of Alexandria was born of a splendid family. For dignity is chiefly derived from nobility of family. Hence in the acts of the purgation of Caecilian, which were published after the Conference of Carthage, Victor, asked by Zenophilus the consular of what condition he was, answered: I am a professor of Roman letters. Then, asked of what dignity he was, he answered: my father a decurion of the Constantinians, my grandfather a soldier, who had served in the imperial retinue. Thus far Valois; but, which makes the matter still clearer, in the Acts of the purgation of Caecilian cited by Valois, which are found in Étienne Baluze from page 91 to 106, after Victor's last answer concerning his dignity has been given, there is subjoined: Zenophilus, vir clarissimus, consular, said: Mindful of your faith and honesty, simply indicate what was the cause of the dissension among the Christians. Furthermore Ruinart, in the Genuine and Select Acts of the martyrs, agrees with the said Valois in asserting nobility of family for St. Dionysius from the words recited at the beginning of this number, nor does Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, in any way oppose it. And indeed that the Saint was born of an illustrious family is asserted also in the patriarchal History of the church of Alexandria published by Echellensis. For its author has thus concerning the Saint: He was a most wise Sabaite, and of the chief men and nobles of the nation. By which words it is certainly most clearly indicated that St. Dionysius was noble by family. Nor is it less plainly asserted that he derived his origin from the nation of the Sabaites. But, you will say, what or of what kind is that nation of the Sabaites, from which the Saint is asserted by the author of the patriarchal History to have drawn his origin?

[28] and was sprung from the nation of the Sabaeites. Cellarius, in book 3, chapter 14 of his Ancient Geography, from Diodorus Siculus and other ancient geographers, places in Arabia Felix the nation of the Sabaeans, whose metropolis is the town of Saba, which gives its name to the whole nation, lying on a mountain of no great size, the most beautiful of all in Arabia. The same author, in book 4, chapter 8 of the same Work, teaches from Strabo and from Josephus, book XI of the Antiquities, chapter 5, that the royal city or metropolis of Ethiopia was also once distinguished by the name of Saba, and moreover attributes another town of the same name to inner Libya. Moreover, in book 4, chapter 1 of the same Work again, he assigns in the region of the Troglodytes, bordering on Egypt and Ethiopia, a port by the name of Saba, which was situated on the Arabian Gulf. If the author of the said patriarchal History writes rightly, St. Dionysius most probably derives his origin either from the nation of the Sabaeans in Arabia Felix, or from one of the three named cities of Ethiopia, of inner Libya, or of the region of the Troglodytes. But whether from the former rather than the latter no one would easily determine. I think nevertheless that the Saint was born neither in Ethiopia nor in inner Libya. Not in Ethiopia, because the metropolis of this region no longer went by the name of Saba in the age of Dionysius, so that if he had been born in it, he would not have been a Sabaite. Not in inner Libya, because this region seems to have been little known to the Saint, as he himself hints in the letter against Germanus already often cited, and it would have been better known to him if he had been born in it. It remains, then, that he was born either in Arabia Felix of the nation of the Sabaeans, or in Troglodytice of the city or port of Saba situated on the Arabian Gulf, or Red Sea. The first may seem likely for this reason, that in the said patriarchal History the Saint is indicated as born of the nation of the Sabaites; whereas in Troglodytice not a nation, as in Arabia, but only a city named Saba is situated; the second, however, will perhaps appear more credible from this, that the inhabitants of the region of Saba in Arabia are called by absolutely all writers not Sabaites but Sabaeans; while the city or port of Saba in Troglodytice is also called Sabat, and the Sabaitic mouth or outlet, so that the inhabitants of this place were probably named Sabaites. Let the learned reader now consider whether he prefers to establish the Saint's native place in Arabia or in Troglodytice. I leave the matter undecided, and from what is uncertain I proceed to more certain matters to be treated in the following §.

§ III. The Saint's conversion to the faith, his profession, the dignity of the presbyterate, and whether he was married before his episcopate.

He was converted from paganism on the occasion of his reading: The Saint spent his early age in the errors of paganism, by the fault of his upbringing rather than his own; but since at the same time he gave himself diligently to letters, reading was the occasion for him to be converted to the true faith of Christ. The Saint himself indicates this not obscurely in his letter to Philemon, a Roman presbyter, in Eusebius, book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 7, where he also relates that he was impelled by a divine oracle to read whatever books of the heretics came his way. Here are the words: I, he says, applied myself to learning the books and traditions of the heretics; defiling my mind for a while indeed with their execrable opinions, yet deriving from them this benefit, that I refuted them silently within myself, and detested them much more than before. And when a certain brother of the order of presbyters forbade me, fearing lest I should perhaps be mingled with the mire of their wickedness: for he said my mind would be contaminated, and indeed most truly, as I myself felt: I was strengthened by a vision sent from heaven. And a voice brought to my ears expressly commanded me in this manner: Read all things whatsoever come into your hands. For you are fit to search out and examine each one; and on this occasion you were first impelled to the faith of Christ. The author of the patriarchal History, already cited more than once, also defines the reading on the occasion of which St. Dionysius was converted from paganism to the Christian faith, subjoining these to the words recited at number 27: And the cause of his (St. Dionysius's) conversion to the faith was the reading of the Epistles of Paul; for having read these, he presented himself to Demetrius (patriarch of Alexandria and predecessor of the Saint before Heraclas), who, receiving him courteously, cleansed him with the water of baptism. That St. Dionysius was converted to the faith by the reading of the Epistles of St. Paul is likewise indicated by the Abyssinian Hagiology in the words produced at number 25, so that the matter, although it does not become certain on the sole authority of the Abyssinian Hagiology and of the patriarchal History, appears at least sufficiently likely.

[30] by profession he was a rhetorician, and a disciple of Origen, Furthermore, now that the conversion of Dionysius to the faith and its occasion have been discussed and proved, it is pleasing also to inquire of what profession the Saint was, what he did when converted to the faith, and in what ecclesiastical grade he was constituted before he was promoted to the episcopal insignia. We learn the profession of Dionysius from St. Maximus the martyr. For he, on chapter 5 of the book on the Celestial Hierarchy, ascribed by many to Dionysius the Areopagite, has thus: Ὁ γουν μέγας Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπος, ὁ ἀπὸ ῥητόρων, ἐν τοῖς Σχολίοις, οἷς πεποίηκεν, εἰς τὸν μακάριον Διονύσιον τὸν ἀυτοῦ συνώνυμον, οὕτω λέγει, Ὃτι ἀγέννητον εἴωθε καλεῖν ἡ ἔξω σοφία, πᾶσαν ἀόρατον φύσιν, ὁμοίως καὶ οὐσίας, τὰς ὑποστάσεις. These words, rendered in Latin, signify: That great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, from among the rhetoricians or orators, in the scholia composed by him on blessed Dionysius, his namesake, says that external philosophy is accustomed to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and likewise essences, supposits. What is said here of scholia composed by Dionysius on the Dionysius who was his namesake I shall discuss later; for now it suffices me that, from this testimony of St. Maximus that has been adduced, the Saint professed Rhetoric, or the oratorical art; and this indeed he did, as it appears to me, while still involved in the errors of paganism; what he did when already freed from them I now set out. Eusebius writes thus in book 6, chapter 26: Origen, about to move from the city of Alexandria to Caesarea, left the school for instructing the faithful of that place to Heraclas. And not long after, Demetrius, bishop of the Alexandrians (in the year 231, according to our Du Sollier on the patriarchs of Alexandria), died, having administered the Church for three and forty years. In his place Heraclas succeeded. Then in chapter 29 of the same book he records these things: At Alexandria … when, after the death of Demetrius, who had discharged the priesthood for three and forty years, Heraclas had taken up the ministry of the (Alexandrian) church, the school for instructing the citizens in the faith was obtained by Dionysius, who himself also had been one of the disciples of Origen.

[31] the catechetical school at Alexandria Thus, according to Eusebius, our Saint, when Heraclas had been raised to the episcopate of Alexandria in the year 231, received in the place of Heraclas the Alexandrian people to be instructed in the principles of the Christian faith, in which both he himself and Heraclas had previously been imbued by Origen. Hence St. Jerome, on the illustrious writers of the Church, chapter 69, writes thus: Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, under Heraclas (already created bishop of Alexandria) held as a presbyter the school of κατηχήσεων, and was a very distinguished hearer of Origen. The Oriental Chronicle writes somewhat differently thus: And when Demetrius had died, Hieraclas set him over the courts of judgment, and appointed him his vicar on account of his remarkable wisdom and talent. But these things take nothing away from the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome. It is further to be noted that, in the words of St. Jerome just recited,

it is openly hinted that St. Dionysius, when he held the school of κατηχήσεων under Heraclas, that is, expounded the elements of the faith to the people, and when he had not yet ascended the chair of Alexandria, had been adorned with the grade of the presbyterate. And indeed that Dionysius was a presbyter before he was promoted to the episcopate is most clearly gathered from that most celebrated passage of the letter of St. Jerome, already cited, to Evagrius, where he says: At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist down to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always named as bishop one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher grade. In the same way as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose from among themselves one whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon, etc.

[32] There have indeed been some who thought that by these words of Jerome only the imposition of hands, he already held as a presbyter before the episcopate; which otherwise had to be done by bishops, was excluded from the ordination of the bishop of Alexandria. But truly these were greatly deceived. For here, as Ruinart rightly observes in the Work cited above, on St. Dionysius, St. Jerome sets forth only the singular privilege of the Alexandrian presbyters, from whose bosom one was always taken by them as bishop: whereas in other churches deacons too and presbyters from outside could be chosen: indeed, for the election not only the clergy of the episcopal city but also the people had to be present, and the bishops of the neighbouring cities had to be called together, as St. Cyprian observes in letter 67 of the new edition, 68 of Pamelius. Thus, as Ruinart rightly continues, Jerome brought forward only those things which were singular, in favour of the presbyters, in the same manner in which the deacon Liberatus, in the Breviarium, chapter 20, reported another custom of the same Alexandrian church. It is indeed the custom, he says, at Alexandria, that he who succeeds the deceased keeps vigil over the body of the deceased, and places the deceased's right hand upon his own head, and, when he has been buried, receives with his own hands upon his neck the pallium of blessed Mark, and then sits lawfully. No one, surely, continues the same author, will deny that in the age of Liberatus, that is, in the sixth century, besides these ceremonies recorded by him, the imposition of the hands of bishops was also employed in the ordination of the bishop of Alexandria, although this all-night vigil alone and the other things he records seem to be required by him for lawful sitting. For in matters of this kind only those things are usually recorded which lie outside the common order. Thus Ruinart; by which it is rightly confirmed that by the words of St. Jerome recited in the preceding number the imposition of hands is not excluded from the ordination of the bishop of Alexandria, but that there is solely assigned the singular custom of the Alexandrian presbyters, by which they received their bishop from nowhere else than from their own bosom, observed constantly from the time of St. Mark down to our Saint; so that it is necessary that he, when he was taken up as bishop of Alexandria, had previously been honoured with the dignity of the presbyterate.

[33] Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, on St. Dionysius, says that he was, however, married that there is also some reason or other for believing that our Saint was joined in matrimony and had children, of whom one was Timothy. And indeed, as he then indicates in the Notes, two passages occur in Eusebius, one in book 7, chapter 26, the other in book 6, chapter 40, which can furnish a foundation for that opinion. In the former Eusebius enumerates some books or letters which our Saint composed, and among these numbers the books on nature dedicated by the Saint to Timothy τῷ παιδὶ, that is, the boy or son. In the latter St. Dionysius, in his letter against Germanus, narrates how he entered upon flight by divine command when the persecution of Decius arose, and says: Ἐγώτε καὶ οἱ παῖδες καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἅμα συνεξήλθομεν; I and my children (so Musculus and Christopherson render τὸ οἱ παῖδες) and many of the brethren went out together. The Saint then, in the course of the narration, makes mention of Timothy, who without doubt, as Tillemont says, was not then a boy. But I do not see for what reason τὸ οἱ παῖδες should here be referred to Timothy. Certainly Timothy was not with the Saint when St. Dionysius, after his going out from his house (see the said letter), was seized by the soldiers, and accordingly he does not seem to have been with him as he went out of his house either. Indeed, that Timothy was most certainly not with him at that time will be plain from the context of the letter to one who considers it. Suppose, however, that Timothy went out of the house together with St. Dionysius as he undertook flight, and so that τὸ οἱ παῖδες ought to be referred to him: not even so will you prove that the Saint had children, and that Timothy was one of them.

[34] does not seem to have been. For the word παῖδες is found employed also to signify the officials of princes or leading men, or also their ministers or servants. In Matthew 14 we read: Καὶ εἶπε τοῖς παισίν ἀυτοῦ; And he said to his servants; where, as will be plain to one who considers it, the word παῖδες is employed to signify the officials or ministers of Herod. In the same signification also the same word is employed in book 2 of Paralipomenon, chapter 35, where it is asserted of king Josiah, when he felt himself wounded: He said to his servants: lead me out of the battle. Εἶπε ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς παισίν ἀυτοῦ etc. Valois renders the word παῖδες in the latter of the two passages of Eusebius cited in the preceding number by servants; but the word παῖς in the former by boy, and in the Notes to this passage writes thus: The book of Dionysius on nature was dedicated Τιμωθέῳ τῷ παιδὶ, which word indeed is of ambiguous signification. Musculus indeed and Christopherson interpreted it SON. I have rendered it BOY. For I do not think that Dionysius ever had a wife. But, says the said Tillemont, with no appearance of truth can it be said that a holy Bishop dedicated a Work composed by himself to a boy, nor is it more likely that Timothy, to whom Dionysius inscribed his study on nature, was a servant. I confess, neither the one nor the other seems likely. But since the word παῖς, as I have already shown, is employed also to signify the ministers of leading men, it may have been employed in this signification both by Eusebius in book 7, chapter 26, and by St. Dionysius in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 40; so that in the former place it signifies that St. Dionysius inscribed his book on nature Τιμωθέῳ τῷ παιδὶ, that is, to an official or minister, namely one such as discharged also a more honourable office under the Saint in the Alexandrian church; and in the latter that he went out with his ministers, that is, both servants and clerics, who certainly surpassed the servants in dignity. Moreover it can also be said that Timothy, to whom the Saint dedicated the book, is truly called his son by him, not indeed according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, because the Saint had perhaps begotten him in the Lord by converting him to the faith, or because he was his spiritual father, as being bishop and pastor. All these things having been weighed, I prefer to agree with Valois, who thinks that the Saint was not joined in matrimony, rather than with Tillemont, who inclines to the opposite opinion.

§ IV. The Saint's promotion to the episcopate of Alexandria, and its epoch; the persecution raised against the Christians at Alexandria by the populace, and then another by Decius.

The Saint as bishop of Alexandria When St. Heraclas, patriarch of Alexandria, had been taken from among the living, the Alexandrian presbyters promoted to the sacred chair of St. Mark St. Dionysius, one from their own bosom, who had already been head of the school of catechesis at Alexandria for nearly sixteen years from the death of Demetrius, likewise patriarch of Alexandria immediately before Heraclas. This is certain and placed beyond all controversy. But as to the year in which it was done, the learned do not agree. Some give their opinion for the year 247, others on the contrary for the year 248. This diversity of opinions arises chiefly from the manifest chronological disagreement of the Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical History, both of which Works have one and the same author, Eusebius. For this writer, in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 35, marks St. Dionysius's promotion to the episcopate of Alexandria, or to the sacred chair of St. Mark, in this manner: And in the third year of this reign (of Philip), when Heraclas had met his last day after sixteen years of episcopate, Dionysius took up the pontificate of the Alexandrian church; but in the Chronicle he refers the beginnings of the Alexandrian patriarchate entered upon by St. Dionysius to the fifth year of the emperor Philip. Our Du Sollier, on the patriarchs of Alexandria, number 125 and following, thinks that Eusebius's Chronicle is reconciled with the History if it is established that, from the death of St. Heraclas before the promotion of St. Dionysius, the see of Alexandria was vacant, as is asserted in the Oriental Chronicle, for one year and a few months besides.

[36] But, be it said with the good leave of that learned man, in the third year of the emperor Philip, this opinion of his does not seem to me to stand in any way. For it requires that the words produced from Eusebius in the preceding number assign only the year of Heraclas's death. And indeed if they in fact designate only the year in which Heraclas died, it can easily be understood how, a vacancy of one year and a little more being built up between Heraclas's death and Dionysius's promotion, Heraclas is rightly narrated by Eusebius in the History to have departed from the living in the third year of Philip, while in the Chronicle the promotion of St. Dionysius to the chair of Alexandria is attached to the Vth year of Philip. But the recited words of Eusebius rather signify that St. Dionysius took up the pontificate of the Alexandrian church in the third year of Philip than that St. Heraclas died then. The matter will become plain to one who considers the words themselves. Now since in the History Eusebius says that St. Dionysius was promoted to the chair of Alexandria in the third year of Philip, but in the Chronicle refers this event to the fifth year of Philip, I do not see how the latter can be reconciled with the former. For Dionysius cannot have first received the Alexandrian church to govern in the third year of Philip and at the same time in the fifth. But, you will say, to which of Eusebius's Works must one adhere, the Chronicle or the History? Our said Du Sollier follows the Chronicle, and on its credit attaches St. Dionysius's promotion to the see of Alexandria to the fifth year of Philip, 248 of Christ. But he would undoubtedly have done otherwise if he had recognized that the aforesaid Chronicle can in no way be reconciled with the History. For he himself, on the patriarchs of Alexandria, often inculcates that one must stand by Eusebius's History rather than by the Chronicle, when the latter cannot be brought into concord with the former. Standing firmly, then, on this principle of Du Sollier, I follow Eusebius's History, and on its credit I think the beginnings of the Alexandrian patriarchate entered upon by St. Dionysius are to be attached to the third year of Philip. Now, partly from this and partly from what is to be said, it follows that St. Dionysius was raised to the episcopate of Alexandria at the beginning of the year 247.

[37] was elected in the year of Christ 247, For Philip, as is now the common opinion of the learned, first began to reign in the year 244 about the month of March, and so the third year of his reign coincides partly with the year 246, partly with the year 247. Now since Heraclas, by the testimony of Eusebius in the History, met his last day in the third year of Philip, and that indeed, as our Du Sollier, already cited more than once, on the Patriarchs

of Alexandria, number 125 and following, teaches, on the IVth day of December, it is necessary that our Saint's promotion to the chair of Alexandria, which I have already shown is to be attached to the third year of Philip, took place between the fourth day of December of the year 246 and the month of March of the year 247. Furthermore, since St. Dionysius prolonged his life to the year 265, as the learned now commonly establish, and administered the episcopate of Alexandria for seventeen years, as Eusebius teaches in book 7 of the History, chapter 28, it follows that he was raised to the see of Alexandria at the beginning of the year 247, lest he should have to be said to have held it beyond those seventeen years assigned by Eusebius. Nor is there reason why anyone should object here that from the beginning of the year 247 to the beginning of the year 265, in which the Saint died, more than seventeen years run. For the whole matter can be conceived thus: suppose Dionysius was raised to the chair of Alexandria towards the end of February, while the third year of Philip was still running, and then in the year 265 departed from the living either before February or at the beginning of that month; now you will have only seventeen complete years during which the Saint held the chair of Alexandria; and although nearly eleven months perhaps were also added to these, Eusebius can be understood to express only complete years and to neglect the excess of months above them. Certainly this method of expressing only complete years from time to time cannot be called unusual either for Eusebius or for many other writers.

[38] and about two years afterwards at Alexandria Moreover, that St. Dionysius, as what has already been disputed hints, sat in the chair of St. Mark not a few months beyond seventeen complete years is confirmed in some fashion by the Kircherian catalogue of the patriarchs of Alexandria: for this attributes eighteen years of see to the Saint. However that may be, I would not wish to defer St. Dionysius's promotion to the episcopate of Alexandria to the year 248. For thus there would have to be established between it and the death of St. Heraclas, which happened in the year 246, the vacancy of the see of Alexandria for one entire year which is asserted in the Oriental Chronicle cited above; and this does not appear likely, not only for the reasons already adduced, but also on account of the tranquillity of Christian affairs at that time under the emperor Philip. For then, as Eusebius signifies in book 6, chapter 36, the Christian faith was increasing daily, and Christian doctrine enjoyed the utmost liberty everywhere. If, meanwhile, St. Heraclas's death had happened two years later, the vacancy of the see of Alexandria built up in the Oriental Chronicle, which very often strays from the truth in chronological matters, would certainly not be strange, nor unlike the truth. For when scarcely two years had elapsed after St. Heraclas's death, a most savage persecution blazed out at Alexandria against the Christians, stirred up by the raging idolatrous populace. This is understood from Eusebius, who writes thus in book 6 of the History, chapter 41: But in the letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, he (St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria) relates the contests of those who underwent martyrdom at Alexandria under the rule of Decius in this manner: The persecution (stirred up at Alexandria by the populace) did not begin from the edict of the emperor (Decius), since it had preceded (the decree of Decius) by an entire year. The persecution of Decius against the Christians, as is now sufficiently agreed among the learned, first began to be set in motion towards the end of the year 249 or at the beginning of the following; wherefore, since, as the beginning of our Saint's letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, just produced from Eusebius, teaches, the other persecution, which had been stirred up at Alexandria by the idolatrous people, preceded it by an entire year, it is necessary that this blazed up already towards the end of the year 248, or at the beginning of the following, and so when scarcely two years had elapsed after St. Heraclas's death. If, then, Heraclas's death had fallen in that mournful time, a fitting reason, sought from the disturbance of affairs, could be assigned why a vacancy of the see of Alexandria of one entire year should have intervened between it and St. Dionysius's promotion.

[39] Furthermore that persecution arising against the Christians at Alexandria, while elsewhere the churches still enjoyed profound peace under the emperor Philip, a savage one arose against the Christians from the gentile populace, since he was not slain before the year 249, was set in motion chiefly by one most hostile enemy of the Christian name. Our Saint indicates this in the said letter written to Fabius, immediately subjoining to its beginning, already recited from Eusebius: Καὶ φθάσας ὁ κακῶν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ μάντις καὶ ποιητὴς ὅστις ἐκεῖνος ἦν, ἐκίνησε καὶ παρώρμησε καθ᾽ ἡμῶν τὰ πλήθη τῶν ἔθνῶν. I transcribe these words here in Greek so that, since they receive various interpretations from various people, the studious reader may consider which of these is to be preferred. Baronius will have it that the instigator of the Alexandrian people designated by Dionysius in those words was a magician, and indeed that very one who afterwards roused Valerian against the Church. Valois, in the Notes to the aforesaid passage, establishes that he was rather a soothsayer and a poet, because poets have great fellowship with Soothsayers, and the Egyptians delighted in poetry. Hence he renders the Greek words already transcribed here thus: For a certain ill-omened soothsayer and poet, whoever he was, had already before stirred up and incited against us the crowds of the gentiles. Pearson, in the Annales Cyprianici, affirms that neither Baronius nor Valois attained the mind of St. Dionysius, and simply translates the aforesaid words in this manner: And, anticipating, the prophet and author of evils to this city, whoever he was, stirred up and incited against us the crowds of the gentiles. And he renders this reason for a version of this kind: For this, he says, he (Dionysius, namely) meant, that someone or other had been the author of the former evils to the city under Philip, and the prophet of the future ones under Decius. This interpretation and version of Pearson pleases me more than the other two; I would wish, however, that in it, instead of "and anticipating," there should be put, for the sake of clarity, "and making a beginning" or "and a beginning having been made": for Dionysius means to signify that the instigator of the people whom he records gave the beginning to the persecution set in motion by the idolatrous people, and anticipated all others in that matter.

[40] a persecution, in which the Saint endured many things, However that may be, it is at least certain that that persecution was stirred up chiefly by one enemy of the Christian name. How savage, however, and how bloody it was, St. Dionysius himself again sets out in the said letter to Fabius. Goaded, therefore, he says, by this man (the instigator of the people already mentioned), and having obtained every licence for perpetrating crimes, they (the Alexandrian Gentiles, namely) thought this the sole piety and worship of their demons, to rage with slaughter against our people. Then he narrates that a certain old man named Metras carried off the crown of martyrdom, and Apollonia, a virgin already of advanced age, and several others of his flock, of which plainly not one, unless you perhaps except one, succumbed to the savagery of the persecutors by denying Christ. And these things indeed Dionysius says of others; but what he himself suffered in that persecution may be gathered from what he then records. Furthermore, he says, nowhere: not along the public road, not through the alleys, were we allowed to go, either by night or by day: since all everywhere and constantly cried out: whoever refused to utter those impious words, he must be dragged off at once and consumed by avenging flames. The Saint thus sustained threats and continual anguish from the raging populace, which, however grave, their very long duration made graver still. For the said persecution, as Dionysius himself relates, lasted ἐπιπολὺ, that is, long, though not very long, as Valois renders it. Pearson in the Annales Cyprianici, and after him Pagi in the Critica, rightly affirm that it raged up to the Paschal feast which immediately preceded the persecution of Decius. For, as they observe, Dionysius in the Paschal letter in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 22, writes thus: Many and bitter things indeed befell us before this calamity. For first they drove us out, and when we alone were being put to flight by all and exposed to death, even then we celebrated the feast, the Paschal one, namely, of which the Saint treats. Wherefore, since these words hint that Dionysius celebrated the Paschal feast while the persecution raged, and they are, as Valois rightly remarks, altogether to be understood of the popular persecution, which was the first under Dionysius and concerned the Alexandrians alone, there is no doubt that it held at Alexandria up to the Paschal feast which immediately preceded the persecution of Decius, begun, as I have shown, in the year 249.

[41] which then another, set in motion by Decius, succeeded. But not very long after, a sedition having arisen unexpectedly with civil war, it came to an end, and then indeed the Christians at Alexandria breathed again a little. There followed then (says Dionysius in the letter to Fabius already often cited) sedition and civil war, which, overtaking the wretched men (Pearson prefers Contests), turned against themselves mutually the cruelty with which they had assailed our people. And we indeed breathed again a little, while their fury ceased. But this breathing-space of the Christians lasted a very short time: for Dionysius immediately subjoins to the words just recited: But presently the change of that reign which had been most kind towards us was announced to us; and the gravest terror of threats was held over us. And already the edict of the emperor, of Decius namely, was at hand, showing almost that very thing which was foretold by our Lord, horrifying and terrible, so that even the elect themselves, if it were possible, should suffer scandal. The change of reign which Dionysius here says took place was not a change of mind, as Baronius expounds it, but a change in reality of the reign itself, arising from the sudden slaying of the Philips. For Decius, after Marinus, who had declared himself emperor in the West, had been removed, being sent by Philip to chastise the Pannonian legions, was proclaimed emperor by the army in Pannonia. And he, having assumed the purple, slew at Verona, battle having been joined, Philip the elder, who was contending against him with a huge army, and a little afterwards, Philip the Younger also having been slain at Rome, proclaimed himself emperor and consul. All these things are established on the credit of the ancient writers, and are now generally attached by all the learned to the year of Christ 249, in which Decius also began at once his reign and the most savage persecution against the Christians, as far as that reign extended. Wherefore, since, from what has been said, the persecution at Alexandria arising from the popular movement, and so also the change of the reign more kindly towards the Christians which followed it shortly, recorded by Dionysius, fell in the same year 249, there can be no doubt that this is that same change of reign already set out, which came about from the sudden slaying of the Philips, and which was followed by the most savage persecution against the Christians, by the edict of Decius, who had then first obtained the empire.

§ V. What Dionysius suffered in the persecution of Decius, and what Taposiris is, to which he was then led.

The Saint, when the Decian persecution arose, by divine command from his house What the Christians at Alexandria suffered in the Decian persecution, how many of them fell away from the faith, whether from fear of torments or from impatience, how many on the contrary, constant in the confession of Christ, overcame all torments and at length carried off the glorious palm of martyrdom, our Saint sets out at length and at the same time accurately in the letter to Fabius, already cited very often; but what he himself chiefly

endured at that time, how he entered upon flight, how he was snatched from the hands of the soldiers by whom he had been taken after it, he teaches us in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 40, in a notable Fragment of the letter written against Germanus and already cited by us very often, which, since it concerns our purpose above all, I therefore transcribe here entire. The Saint first narrates his flight thus: I, he says, speak before God, and He knows that I do not lie at all; never did I enter upon flight of my own accord, nor without the will of God. But even before, when the edict of persecution had been set forth under Decius, Sabinus (the Augustal prefect) sent at that very moment a frumentarius (a soldier sent out through the provinces to track down the accused and to gather rumours, as Valois interprets) to seek me out. And I indeed stayed at home for four days, awaiting the coming of the frumentarius. But he, going round everything, searched the roads, the rivers, the fields, where he suspected I was hidden or by which I would pass. But a certain mist had taken away his sight, so that he did not find the house. For he did not suppose that I was staying at home while the persecution was raging against me; and scarcely after the fourth day, when God had commanded me to move elsewhere, and had opened the way contrary to the expectation of all, I and my servants and many of the brethren went out together. And that this was a work of divine providence the outcome of events afterwards declared, since to some perhaps we were not at all useless.

[43] having gone out, he is taken by soldiers towards evening, Eusebius here interrupts the Saint's narration, in which he has now set out his flight and its manner, and says that he, after a few things interposed, narrates what befell him after the flight. Would that Eusebius had not broken off the Saint's narration here, but had given it entire! Without doubt it would be given to be understood from it what those things were in which the Saint, as he himself says, was then not useless to some. But it was enough for Eusebius to set out the series of the things which then befell St. Dionysius. Here are the words in which the Saint himself sets this forth in that writer. I, he says, about sunset, together with my companions, being seized by the soldiers, was led to Taposiris (it is a small town of Egypt in the Mareotis, towards Libya). But Timothy, God so disposing, was not then present, nor was he seized. But when he came afterwards, he found the house empty, and the guards who were keeping it; and us led away into servitude. Eusebius here again breaks off our Saint's narration. I cannot conjecture what lay hidden under the words suppressed by him. Dionysius meanwhile, in the said Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, in the letter which he wrote to Domitius and Didymus, indicates somewhat differently that he was seized by soldiers and led away into captivity. Here are the words: But concerning our affairs, he says, since you inquire and wish to be informed in what state we are; you have certainly heard how, when I and Gaius and Faustus with Peter and Paul were being led in bonds by a centurion, and by the magistrates, and the soldiers and attendants who were with them, certain men of the Mareotis coming upon us dragged us away by force, unwilling and not following of our own accord. It is hinted here that the magistrates lent their assistance for conducting Dionysius into exile; which will perhaps seem strange to some. For what reason this was done Valois fittingly sets out in the Annotations to the chapter of Eusebius just cited. Meanwhile it is right here to wonder at divine providence, which, when it had ordered Dionysius to take to flight, nevertheless permitted him in his flight to fall into the hands of the persecutors. But perhaps it did this only either so that the Saint might be of use to those to whom his flight was of use, or so that it might snatch him from the hands of the persecutors in an altogether wonderful manner, as came about. The manner in which the Saint, when captured, was restored to liberty he himself also sets out in the place in Eusebius just cited. I proceed therefore to transcribe his words here.

[44] and the night immediately following, out of their hands What then, he says, was the order and manner of that divine disposition? For I will tell what is true. As Timothy was fleeing and in distress, a certain countryman meeting him asks the cause of his haste. He set out the matter as it was. The rustic, having heard the matter (he was then going, as it happened, to a wedding banquet: for at banquets of this kind they are accustomed to keep vigil the whole night), going in, tells the matter to those reclining at table. They at once, as though at a given signal, all rose up with one rush. And rushing upon us at a quick run, they raised a shout. At once, the guards who were keeping us having been turned to flight, coming upon us they found us, just as we were, lying on bare pallets; and at the first sight, God is my witness, thinking they were robbers who had come for the sake of stripping and plundering, remaining naked on my little bed, covered only with a linen tunic, I held out to them the rest of my clothing, which had been placed beside me. But they ordered me to get up and set out as quickly as possible. Then at last understanding for what purpose they had come, I began to cry out: begging and beseeching that they would go away and leave us there. And if they wished to deserve well of us, I prayed that they would forestall the guards who were leading me away, and themselves cut off my head. While I was crying out these things, as those know who were my consorts and sharers in all my hardships, they forced me to rise against my will. And I indeed threw myself on my back on the ground. But they, seizing me by the feet and hands, began to drag me and lead me out. There followed me Gaius and Faustus, Peter and Paul, who were witnesses of all these things. They, taking me up, carried me out of the little town, and then, having set me on a bare ass, led me away.

[45] Thus far our Saint. But here a huge difficulty arises. at Taposiris, a small town of Egypt For, the whole series of the narration being considered, it seems to indicate that St. Dionysius, on the same day on which by the will of God he moved out of his house, having been taken at sunset, was led to Taposiris, and in the night immediately following, having been snatched from the hands of the soldiers, was compelled to leave that little town. But Taposiris is more remote from Alexandria than that it could easily be believed that the Saint was led to Taposiris on the very day on which he was taken at Alexandria at sunset. For although a double Taposiris is distinguished among the ancient geographers, and of these two towns of the same name one was nearer to Alexandria and the other less near, yet neither was so near that it becomes likely that the Saint was led to it by the soldiers on the very day on which he had been taken at Alexandria at sunset. In order that the matter may come out clearer, it will help to have shown the situation of each town and its distance from the city of Alexandria. The Mareotis is a region of Egypt situated on the Western shore of the lake of Marea, which adjoins Alexandria to the South, towards Libya. In that region, by the testimony of Strabo, book XVII, there is situated a town distinguished by the name of Taposiris, and distant from Alexandria, as Procopius teaches in book 6 of the κτισμάτων, chapter 1, one day's journey. And this is the first of the two towns of the same name distinguished by the name of Taposiris. Receive now the other. A canal, as Strabo also teaches in the place just cited, led from Alexandria towards the Nile at Canopus, between which canal and the sea, by the testimony of the same geographer, there was a certain narrow tract, in which, after Nicopolis and Zephyrium, was situated little Taposiris. And although he does not state how great a space this little town was distant from Alexandria, it can nevertheless be gathered from his other assertions. For he says that Canopus was distant from Alexandria one hundred and twenty stadia, and between this city and Alexandria he places three towns, Nicopolis, Zephyrium and Taposiris, of which the first, as he asserts, was thirty stadia distant from Alexandria.

[46] Since, therefore, according to the same Strabo, Nicopolis is distant from Alexandria thirty stadia, in the Mareotis that is, more than one hour-league, and between this city and Taposiris Zephyrium is situated, this second Taposiris of Strabo was probably about three, or at least more than two, hour-leagues distant from Alexandria. Both cities, then, distinguished by the name of Taposiris, were more remote from Alexandria than that it appears likely that the Saint was led by the soldiers to one or the other on the very day on which he had been taken at Alexandria at sunset. And indeed that the Saint was not led by the soldiers to the Taposiris mentioned in the last place, although it was much less remote from Alexandria, is proved by his own letter written to Domitius and Didymus. For in this (see the words recited at number 43) Dionysius indicates that he was snatched from the hands of the soldiers by the Mareotes, so that consequently, when this happened, he was in the Mareotis, and so that he was not led by the soldiers to the Taposiris situated towards Canopus. Nor is there ground for you to say that the Saint in the letter to Domitius and Didymus and in the other against Germanus does not treat of one and the same deliverance of his from the hands of the soldiers; for that this is foreign to the truth will become most clearly evident from what is to be said. But, you will say, was Dionysius then led to Taposiris situated in the Mareotis on the very day on which he was taken at Alexandria at sunset? Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 658, thinks that St. Dionysius, on the day on which he was taken, was led by the soldiers not to Taposiris but to a certain village not far distant from Alexandria, where also he was snatched from the hands of the guards by the Mareotes in the night immediately following, so that he might afterwards be led farther to Taposiris, as the place destined for his exile.

[47] from the little town, he is snatched away by the Mareotes, But this opinion of Tillemont seems by no means to agree with our Saint's letter written against Germanus. For Dionysius, as we have already seen, first relates in it that he was seized at sunset and led to Taposiris; and then says that, having been snatched from the hands of the guards, he was carried out of the little town, by which, since he had previously made mention of this little town alone, he without doubt designates Taposiris. The Saint, then, as he himself indicates in the said letter, was snatched from the hands of the guards by the Mareotes at Taposiris, and accordingly the opinion of Tillemont, which establishes that the Saint was snatched from the hands of the guards by the Mareotes not at Taposiris but in a village not far distant from Alexandria, is opposed to St. Dionysius's letter against Germanus. Receive now what I think in this matter. The whole context of the letter against Germanus being considered, it altogether appears that the Saint, seized at sunset, was led to Taposiris in the night immediately following, and there snatched from the hands of the guards. And that this is not altogether unlike the truth I show thus. Taposiris situated in the Mareotis is distant from Alexandria, as I have already shown, only one day's journey. Wherefore, since the Saint was seized at sunset, and so (for the Decian persecution began, according to what was said at number 38, in the month of December or January) about the fifth hour of the evening, he could easily have been led to that little town in the night immediately following, before half of it had elapsed. Nor is there reason for you to say that it is likely

not that the Saint was led away so far from Alexandria by night; for some grave reason, although unknown to us, may have lain beneath it why the prefect of Alexandria wished this to be done. Certainly he condemned Dionysius, taken at sunset, to exile at once, as is admitted by all, nor is any reason known why he did not defer this sentence of his at least to the following day. If, then, he used such haste in passing the sentence of exile against the Saint, he could also have used equal haste in actually relegating the Saint so far, and that by night.

[48] he withdraws into Libya, Thus, in order not to depart from the mind of Dionysius, I arrange the whole matter thus: Dionysius, having gone out of his house in the absence of Timothy, is taken at sunset, is condemned to exile by the magistrates and the prefect Sabinus, and in the very night immediately following, in order that he may afterwards be led farther away, is ordered to be led off to Taposiris, a town of the Mareotis; a little afterwards Timothy returns home, understands that the Saint has been led off to Taposiris, presently takes to flight towards the same town, meets, when the night is already far advanced (for that it was then deep in the night St. Dionysius himself also clearly indicates in the letter against Germanus), a rustic hurrying to a wedding feast, not very far from Taposiris, and tells him that Dionysius has been condemned to exile and led as a captive by the soldiers to that town; the rustic, having gone into the place of the banquet, sets out the matter to those reclining at table; they at once, as though at a given signal, all rise with one rush, fly to Taposiris, the night having already for the greater part gone by, raise a disorderly shout, put to flight the guards keeping Dionysius, compel the Saint, although resisting, to get up from his bed and depart; and then carry him out of the little town of Taposiris, and, having set him on an ass, lead him away, not indeed, as Christopherson renders, those drunken guests, but Gaius, Faustus, Peter and Paul, as Valois has rightly interpreted in the Notes. The whole narration of our Saint, arranged thus, certainly offers the reader nothing, as it appears to me at least, that is unlike the truth. Furthermore, what became of Dionysius after, compelled by the rustic Mareotes to leave Taposiris, he was snatched from the hands of the guards, he himself indeed does not indicate in the letter against Germanus, but in the letter to Domitius and Didymus, already often cited, he signifies that, having been snatched from the hands of the soldiers by the Mareotes, he was shut up with Gaius and Peter, bereft of the other brethren, in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya. I indeed now, he says after the words recited at number 40, and Peter and Gaius alone, bereft of the other brethren, have been shut up in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya, three days' journey distant from Paraetonium, a sea-port, namely, in Marmarica.

[49] The Saint probably set out of his own accord to that desert and squalid place of Libya, and there he probably lies hidden as long as the Decian persecution lasts. and shut himself up in it, because he had understood, when he was being led by the soldiers to Taposiris, that it was destined for him for exile, and thought that in that way it would come about that he would not come under suspicion of guile employed to escape from the hands of the guards by whom he was being led into exile. However that may be, the Saint remained shut up in that desert and squalid place of Libya, as it appears, as long as the Decian persecution lasted. Wherefore, since this, as is now sufficiently agreed among all the learned, came to an end in the year 251, it follows that the Saint did not leave that desert and squalid place of Libya before that same year. But the things I have recorded here concerning our Saint's voluntary exile in Libya, while the Decian persecution was raging, hold good only if the letter written by our Saint to Domitius and Didymus pertains to the persecution of Decius, and not to that of Valerian. Some refer it to the persecution of Decius, others on the contrary to that of Valerian. Whether one ought rather to agree with these or with those I examine in the following §.

§ VI. The letter of Dionysius to Domitius and Didymus, and whether it was written under Valerian or under Decius.

The letter which the Saint wrote to Domitius and Didymus, Of all the letters written by St. Dionysius, with whose help chiefly I have proposed to illustrate his acts, the one given to Domitius and Didymus comes to be treated in the first place for this reason, that it preceded all the rest in time, as it will be easy to gather from what is presently to be disputed. I have already transcribed some words from it in the course of this Commentary, as the plan of my undertaking required. Others still remain, and among them some which excellently commend the deep humility of Dionysius's mind and the ardent desire of martyrdom by which he was held. Here, then, they are too: This only, says Dionysius, it is fitting that you should know in general, that men and women, young men and old, girls and old women, soldiers and civilians; in short, of every kind and age of men, some having overcome in the contest the blows of scourges, others the edge of the sword, others fire, have carried off crowns. But to some a very long space of time has not been enough for them to appear acceptable to God; as neither to me up to this day. Namely, the Lord has deferred me to another opportune time, which is well known to Himself, who says: In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in the day of salvation have I helped thee. So the Saint, signifying, namely, that after a long life he had not yet become so acceptable to God as to have merited to carry off the crown of martyrdom; by which indeed he most openly betrays how humbly he thinks of himself, and with how ardent a desire of martyrdom he burns. He also adds things from which it becomes manifest that this letter was written while the persecution was still raging against the Christians. For, he says, up to this day the prefect does not cease, as to our people who are brought into his presence, partly to kill them most cruelly, partly to tear them with torments, partly to waste them with the squalor of prison and with chains, forbidding anyone to approach them, and searching whether anyone perhaps seems to approach. It is certain, then, that the aforesaid letter was written while the persecution was still raging. But the question now is whether this was the persecution of Decius or of Valerian.

[51] Eusebius and Baronius, under Valerian: Eusebius in book 7, chapter XI, having recited the notable Fragment of St. Dionysius's letter against Germanus, subjoins these words: Furthermore the same Dionysius, in the letter which he wrote to Domitius and Didymus, again records some things pertaining to that persecution thus. Wherefore, since in the Fragment just cited the persecution of Valerian was treated by our Saint, Eusebius most openly refers to the same persecution of Valerian the letter, written by our Saint to Domitius and Didymus, of which he presently subjoins a Fragment. Rufinus followed Eusebius, and indeed interprets him in such a way as to narrate that the confinement of St. Dionysius in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya, asserted in the aforesaid letter, happened after his exile under Valerian at Cephro and then in the Mareotis. Ado, following Rufinus in part, did the same in the elogium of St. Dionysius produced above. Baronius in the Annals embraces only the opinion of Eusebius, but not likewise the interpretation adapted to it by Rufinus, so that he doubtless means that in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, in the letter of St. Dionysius written to Domitius and Didymus, the treatment is solely of the Saint's exile in Libya which happened under Valerian. But Valois, in the Annotations to the chapter of Eusebius just cited, contends that the Saint's exile which happened under Valerian is not treated there, and that the Saint's letter to Domitius and Didymus was not written while the persecution of Valerian was raging. Valois was afterwards followed, and not undeservedly, by Tillemont in volume 4 of the Memoirs and by Ruinart in the Genuine and Select Acts of the martyrs.

[52] Valois and his followers establish their opinion roughly by these reasons. [Valois on the contrary, and others, hold it written under Decius, and not undeservedly,] In the persecution under Valerian St. Dionysius was not led into exile under military guard; nor was he forcibly snatched by the Mareotes who came upon him from the hands of the guards by whom he was being led into exile; nor did he then have Gaius, Peter and Paul as Companions. All these things, on the contrary (see in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 40, St. Dionysius's letter written against Germanus), befell the Saint at the beginning of the Decian persecution. Hence now, since the Saint narrates in the letter to Domitius and Didymus that all these same things happened to him, they conclude excellently that in it the treatment is of the exile into which the Saint was sent not under Valerian but under Decius. And that the Saint truly, as Valois and his followers say, under Valerian was neither sent into exile with a military guard, nor restored to liberty by the Mareotes, nor finally had Gaius, Peter and Paul as companions at that time, becomes manifest from the other Fragment of St. Dionysius's letter against Germanus, set before the letter to Domitius and Didymus in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, and already often cited before. For in it the Saint narrates with what Companions, when the persecution of Valerian had arisen, he confessed the Christian faith before the prefect Aemilianus, and how he was driven by him into exile: but he nowhere makes mention either of the Mareotes or of a military guard or of Gaius, Peter and Paul.

[53] Indeed, as regards the military guard, written. he not only does not reveal that he was led into exile with it, but even openly insinuates the contrary. For it runs thus: Aemilianus the prefect said (to St. Dionysius and his Companions): I see that you are at once ungrateful and stupid, who do not at all perceive the clemency of the Augusti. Wherefore you shall not remain in this city, but shall be sent into the parts of Libya, to a place called Cephro. For this place I have chosen by order of our Augusti. And it shall in no way be permitted either to you or to any others whatsoever to hold assemblies, or to go to those places which are called cemeteries. And if anyone shall be caught not having set out to the place which I have ordered, or shall be found in any assembly, he shall bring danger upon himself. For fitting punishment will not be lacking. Depart, then, whither you have been ordered. And at once he compelled me, although I was sick, to set out, not even a delay of one day being granted. By which words the Saint clearly indicates that he and his Companions were not sent into exile by force with a military guard, but only received a command from the prefect Aemilianus to depart into exile of their own accord. For what else, I ask, do the following words, already recited, insinuate? And if anyone shall be caught not having set out to the place which I have ordered … he shall bring danger upon himself … depart, then, whither you have been ordered. It is clear, then, that the Saint in the persecution of Valerian was neither led into exile by soldiers with his Companions Gaius, Peter and Paul, nor snatched from their hands by the Mareotes, so that concerning the exile which the Saint suffered under Valerian

there is no treatment in the letter to Domitius and Didymus, and accordingly that it was written while the persecution not of Valerian but of Decius was raging.

[54] Pagi asserts that, of the persecution of Valerian, not all but at least some Pagi nevertheless, in the Critica at the year 252, number 25 and following, goes on referring that literary monument of our Saint to the persecution of Valerian, and that although he admits that Dionysius, in the persecution set in motion by Valerian, was not led away into exile by force by soldiers, nor restored to liberty by the Mareotes who came upon them. And in order that he may be able to defend this opinion of his, he builds up that the things which Dionysius wrote to Domitius and Didymus in the aforesaid letter happened partly under Decius and partly under Valerian and Gallienus. In that letter, therefore, he says at the year cited, number 26, Dionysius narrates in passing what he endured in the Decian persecution, and afterwards says that he is now shut up in a desert place of Libya, and that Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon, deacons, survive after those who were consumed by disease, namely in the reign of Valerian, at which time, as also under Decius, Dionysius was relegated into Libya. Pagi thus means that whatever precedes the following words of Dionysius in the letter given to Domitius and Didymus pertains to the Decian persecution: I indeed now, and Peter and Gaius alone, bereft of the other brethren, have been shut up in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya, three days' journey distant from Paraetonium; but these, together with what follows, he contends are to be referred to the persecution of Valerian, and so that the letter which Dionysius gave to Domitius and Didymus was written in its time.

[55] the words of the letter treat, which is shown not to stand, But the words of Dionysius just recited cannot be referred to the persecution of Valerian, that is, to the exile which our Saint endured in Libya under Valerian. For in them the Saint asserts that only two associates or companions, namely Peter and Gaius, were with him in the exile which, at the time when he was writing to Domitius and Didymus, he sustained in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya; whereas in the exile which the Saint endured under Valerian at Cephro, a place of Libya, more companions or associates were always with him. This is clear from the Saint's own letter against Germanus, already often cited, and inserted by Eusebius in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter XI. Here are the words: But at Cephro, says the Saint, a great multitude of the faithful was with us; partly of those who had followed us from the city (of Alexandria), partly of others who flocked together from the rest of Egypt. Moreover the matter can also be confirmed from the words already recited at number 48, which Aemilianus the prefect uttered against Dionysius and his Companions who had confessed Christ, and which the Saint inserted from the public Acts into his letter against Germanus, just now cited again. For in them Aemilianus ordered not Dionysius alone, but with him Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus and Chaeremon, to withdraw into exile, and that to one and the same place of Libya, called Cephro. Wherefore, since it does not seem to be doubted that all of them obeyed Aemilianus, it is proved even from this that St. Dionysius had more than two associates or companions in the exile which he endured in Libya under Valerian. And if you reply that Maximus, Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon, while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting, returned from Libya to Alexandria, Dionysius, Peter and Gaius alone being left there, and that this is indicated in the letter to Domitius and Didymus; I answer that this seems to me less likely.

[56] For those four Companions of St. Dionysius, with every form of law observed, and so it is shown that it was not written under Valerian; were driven into exile by the Augustal prefect Aemilianus under Valerian. Wherefore, if they had returned to Alexandria while the persecution of this emperor was still raging, they would have incurred the utmost danger that, if perhaps caught and denounced to the prefect, they would have been visited by him with death, no longer as Christians, but as violators of the imperial laws: and if they had exposed themselves to such a danger, they seem to have been deservedly blameworthy. For Cyprian, in letter six of the Venice edition of the year 1728, the seventh of Pamelius, to Rogatianus and other confessors, writes thus: For with how great a shame to your name is a fault committed, when one lingers drunken and wanton, another returns to that country from which he was made an exile, so that, being apprehended, he perishes not now as a Christian but as a guilty man? By which words St. Cyprian certainly indicates that those were to be reproved who exposed themselves to the danger mentioned. There is reason, then, why it appears less likely that Maximus, Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon did this. Yet since Aemilianus (see in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, the Fragment of the letter against Germanus) forbade St. Dionysius absolutely every assembly, and he nevertheless did not afterwards observe that command, and accordingly it is not altogether incredible that Maximus, Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon likewise did not observe the command of exile, I rely chiefly on the former argument, deduced in the preceding number from the words of Dionysius in the letter against Germanus; by which alone it is sufficiently proved that in the exile which St. Dionysius endured in Libya under Valerian more than two associates or companions were always with him, and so that the words recited at number 49 from the letter to Domitius and Didymus, in which the Saint, an exile in Libya, writes that only two associates or companions are with him, cannot be referred to the persecution of Valerian: from which it further follows that our Saint's letter to Domitius and Didymus was not written while that persecution was raging.

[57] Nevertheless, in order to prove that it was written at that time, Pagi, in the place just cited, nor does Pagi sufficiently prove his opinion from Eusebius and Nicephorus, also calls to his aid Eusebius and Nicephorus Callistus, both of whom insinuate not obscurely that St. Dionysius wrote a Paschal letter to Domitius and Didymus when Decius had already departed from the living: the latter indeed in book 6, chapter 18, in these words: Dionysius of Alexandria, before peace had been restored to the churches by Gallienus, composed other festal letters also concerning Pascha, of which he gave one to Flavianus (others, Flavius), another to Didymus and Domitius; and the former in book 7, chapter 20, in these: Besides the letters mentioned above, the same Dionysius at that time (in the reign of Gallienus, namely) wrote those paschal letters which we have. One of these he addressed to Flavius; the other to Domitius and Didymus. But what then? Suppose Dionysius wrote, when Gallienus was already reigning, nay while the persecution of Valerian was lasting, to Domitius and Didymus the Paschal letter mentioned by Eusebius in book 7, chapter 20; does it therefore follow that the letter of which Eusebius exhibits a Fragment in book 7, chapter XI, was also written to Domitius and Didymus at that time? It certainly does not follow, unless one and the same letter is mentioned by Eusebius in both places. But how, I ask, will Pagi prove this? Why could not St. Dionysius have written twice to Domitius and Didymus, who seem to have been two brothers or two friends joined by an intimate bond of love? St. Jerome, on the illustrious writers of the Church, chapter 69, writes thus: There is another letter of his (of St. Dionysius) to Dionysius (so he calls Domitius) and to Didymus, and ἑορταστικαὶ, that is, Paschal letters, very many concerning Pascha, written in a declamatory style; by which words Jerome openly distinguishes the letter of St. Dionysius to Domitius, or, as he calls him, Dionysius, and Didymus, from his Paschal letters, so that Dionysius, besides the letter mentioned by Eusebius in book 7, chapter 20, wrote another letter besides to Domitius and Didymus.

[58] sufficiently, Moreover the Paschal letters, which the bishops of Alexandria were once accustomed to write every year, after a panegyrical discourse on the Paschal feast, noted the beginning of Lent and the day on which Pascha was to be celebrated in the year in which they were written; but an argument of this kind by no means fits the letter to Domitius and Didymus partly recited by Eusebius in book 7, chapter XI. For the Saint seems to have written this solely in order to satisfy the request of Domitius and Didymus, by which they had asked to be informed by him of the state in which he was. Add that Eusebius in book 7, chapter 20, records these things: In which (the Paschal letter to Domitius and Didymus) (St. Dionysius), proving that the feast-day of Pascha ought not to be celebrated except after the vernal equinox, published a canon of eight years. But in the Fragment of the letter to Domitius and Didymus which Eusebius inserts in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter XI, not even Pascha is mentioned. This letter is therefore, both on account of this and on account of the other chief reasons already adduced, without doubt different from the Paschal letter to Domitius and Didymus, already often cited. Wherefore, although the latter was written under Valerian, it by no means follows that the other must likewise be referred to the time of the same emperor. Pagi nevertheless, in order to defend the contrary, adduces another argument, and that indeed a sufficiently strong one in appearance.

[59] nor from the plague, which first raged under Gallus; He draws it partly from the time at which a most savage pestilence, noted by the pen of several writers, began to rage through the whole Roman empire in the third century of the Christian era; partly from these words of Dionysius in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, in the letter to Domitius and Didymus: In the city … there hid themselves, in order to visit the brethren secretly, of the presbyters, Maximus, Dioscorus, Demetrius and Lucius … and of the deacons, those surviving after the ones who were consumed by disease, Faustus, Eusebius, Chaeremon. He contends that by the disease by which Dionysius hints that some deacons had been taken from among the living at the time when he was writing, the plague is to be understood, and that this did not begin to rage in the reign of Decius, and accordingly that the letter written to Domitius and Didymus, in which Dionysius indicates deacons carried off by the plague, was written while the persecution not of Decius but of Valerian was raging. I confess, Pagi's reasoning is convincing, if only the said plague did not begin to rage at Alexandria under Decius, and Dionysius in fact hints that some deacons at Alexandria had already perished by it at the time when he was writing to Domitius and Didymus. Furthermore, in order to remove the beginning of that plague from the reign of Decius and to place it later, he cites various ancient historians, namely Jordanes, both Sextus Aurelius Victors, namely the younger and the elder, Eutropius, Paulus Orosius, Cedrenus, Zonaras, who all, as he says, hand down with unanimous consent that the same plague first arose under Gallus and Volusianus, the successors in the empire of the slain Decius.

[60] But in order that it may appear to the studious reader whether all those writers teach this without doubt, the authors who place the plague under Gallus can it will help to transcribe the words of each here. Jordanes, chapter 19, writes thus: Decius then being dead, Gallus and Volusianus obtained the rule of the Romans, when also a pestilent disease, almost

like to this calamity, as we experienced nine years before these, disfigured the face of the whole world, devastating also beyond measure Alexandria and the places of all Egypt. Orosius, book 7, chapter 21, has these words: In the one thousand and seventh year from the founding of the City, Gallus Hostilianus, the twenty-sixth from Augustus, having obtained the rule, held it scarcely two years with his son Volusianus. There arises vengeance for the violated Christian name, and as far as the edicts of Decius ran for the overthrowing of the churches, so far is the plague of incredible diseases extended: there was almost no Roman province, no city, no house, which was not seized and laid waste by that general pestilence. Eutropius sets out the matter in these words: Presently Gallus, Hostilianus and Volusianus, the son of Gallus, were created emperors. Under them Aemilianus attempted a revolution in Moesia; and when both had set out to crush him, they were slain at Interamna, before two years were completed. They did nothing at all illustrious. Their principate was known only for pestilence and diseases and sicknesses. Cedrenus, speaking of Gallus and Volusianus, records these things: At that time a plague prevailed, spread from Ethiopia even to the Western part of the earth: nor was there any city free of it, and many were even infested twice by that pestilence. It held for fifteen years; it began in autumn and ceased about the rising of the dog-star. Zonaras speaks thus of that plague under Gallus and Volusianus: A plague also then invaded the provinces, which, arising from Ethiopia, and having wandered over almost the whole East and West, desolated many cities of their citizens, and lasted for fifteen years. Finally, of the two Sextus Aurelius Victors, the elder consigns the matter to writing in this manner: When the fathers learned these things, they decree the imperial rule of Augusti to Gallus and Hostilianus: Volusianus, born of Gallus, Caesar. Then a pestilence arises; in which, as it raged more atrociously, Hostilianus perished: and the younger in this way: Vibius Gallus with his son Volusianus reigned two years. In their times Hostilianus Perpenna was created emperor by the senate, and not long after was consumed by pestilence.

[61] You have now, learned reader, the words of all the writers be understood of it as then growing stronger, or raging more widely. on whose authority Pagi contends without doubt that that most celebrated plague of the third century first arose under Gallus and Volusianus; consider now whether all of them indicate this so clearly in the words recited that the beginning of the aforesaid plague, saving their assertions, cannot be set under Decius, if not in all the provinces of the Roman empire, at least in Egypt. Certainly Pagi can have nothing from Eutropius and the younger Victor. Cedrenus and Jordanes, for their part, can conveniently be expounded of the plague growing strongest through all the provinces of the Roman empire under Gallus and Volusianus, so that they by no means deny that it had begun somewhere under Decius. Attend to the words of each already recited, and the matter will at once become evident. As regards now Paulus Orosius, Sextus Aurelius Victor the elder, and Zonaras, these indeed write sufficiently openly that the plague first arose under Gallus and Volusianus; but they can be expounded in such a way that they speak not of absolutely all the provinces of the Roman empire, but of the greater part of them, so that they do not deny that the plague had arisen in any province whatever, and so not even in Egypt, before the rule of Gallus and Volusianus. It cannot be doubted that the plague raged in Egypt before it did in the West; for it took its beginning in Ethiopia, as is clear from some of the historians just cited, and from there was spread to the Western provinces of the empire. Besides, Egypt, as is understood from our Saint in Eusebius, struggled with that pestilence more and longer than the other provinces of the empire. It is therefore sufficiently credible that the plague already raged in Egypt under Decius: and although the writers do not mention the plague as already raging in Egypt at that time, this probably came about because it was neither so violent nor general.

[62] The book on the praise of martyrdom teaches that the plague raged under Decius; And indeed that the plague also raged before the rule of Gallus is understood from the excellent little Work on the praise of martyrdom, attributed by some to St. Cyprian. For in it mention is made of the pestilence as raging at the time when it was written, and it is inscribed to Moses, Maximus and the other confessors, of whom it is established that the first, namely St. Moses, was crowned with martyrdom under Decius in the year 251, so that the plague raged already under Decius, and so before Gallus. There are indeed some who deny the said little Work or Treatise on the praise of martyrdom to St. Cyprian, and in fact perhaps (see in our Work the Appendix to the posthumous Glory of St. Cyprian, number 55 and following) that treatise was not composed by St. Cyprian. But let it be so: since it is inscribed to Moses, Maximus and the other confessors who lived with Cyprian, it must have an author contemporary with Cyprian. Nor is there ground for you to say that it is a declamation adorned in oratorical style by an author who was far removed from the age of Moses and Maximus. For this can be contended only for the reason that mention occurs in the said little Work of the plague raging under Decius. But that the plague did not begin to rage under Decius you will prove by no sufficiently certain argument at all; nor does that other argument prove it which Pagi, in the Critica in the place cited above, adds to the arguments already produced here by us. Let us discuss the matter.

[63] nor is the contrary proved from the coins. Finally, he says, not only all the writers who have spoken of this plague, but also the coins, are against Valois (who refers the beginnings of the plague to Decius). For on the reverse of certain coins of Gallus and Volusianus is read: Apollo Salutaris. Which words are also inscribed on the coins of the Augusti Aemilianus as well as Valerian, while nevertheless no coin of the Augustus Decius represents Apollo the Saviour, as may be seen in Mezzabarba on the coins of the emperors; and those which bear that inscription are deservedly referred by the antiquaries to the zeal of these emperors for extinguishing the plague. Thus Pagi, presently also subjoining: While Decius therefore reigned, the plague had not yet arisen. But this conclusion by no means follows from the premises. For from them it follows only that the emperors Gallus, Volusianus, Aemilianus and Valerian burned with greater zeal for extinguishing the plague than Decius. Nor is it strange: they had seen, but he had not, the emperor Hostilianus carried off from among the living by the plague, so that, fearing the plague for themselves on this account, they took refuge in the help of Apollo the Saviour. Moreover, under Decius the plague only began to arise in some places; but under Valerian, Gallus and Volusianus it wandered through all the provinces of the Roman empire. Are men always accustomed at the beginnings of evils to take refuge in heavenly help without any delay? Add that there are not found coins inscribed to Apollo the Saviour of all the other emperors under whom it otherwise happened that the Roman empire was afflicted by plague; it may therefore have been that under the rule of Decius, even though the plague was raging, the striking of coins of this kind was not even thought of.

[64] If, furthermore, you still go on contending that the plague nowhere began to rage in the Roman empire under Decius, [It is not altogether certain that the letter, of which we treat here, mentioned the plague,] and proving it by arguments which do not render the matter beyond doubt, it can also be called into doubt whether our Saint, in his very often cited letter to Domitius and Didymus, mentioned a plague raging at Alexandria, and so it can no longer be argued from this that the said letter was written not under Decius but under Valerian. And how deservedly this can be called into doubt is plain from Rufinus, who read in the text of our Saint produced above [a] not ἐν τῇ νόσῳ, that is, in the plague, but ἐν τῇ νήσῳ, that is, in the island, so that it is signified by our Saint that the deacons of whom he treats departed from the living, at the time when he was giving his letter to Domitius and Didymus, not in the plague, but in the island to which they had been relegated. Tillemont and other learned men think that this reading is not altogether improbable. Valois thinks the reading in which ἐν τῃ νόσῳ is written is to be preferred. And indeed this reading pleases me also more than the other, however not improbable. Wherefore I would not wish to defend Rufinus's reading too obstinately, even though, if it were admitted, the argument which Pagi draws from there for establishing St. Dionysius's letter to Domitius and Didymus under Valerian would lose all its force. But at the same time I contend, as I have already done before, that not even from this is the matter certainly made out. For since, from the reasons already adduced before, the plague most probably began to rage at Alexandria under Decius, by what reasoning, I ask, can it be certainly concluded that St. Dionysius's letter to Domitius and Didymus was written under Valerian, because in it mention is made by the Saint of a plague by which some deacons were carried off? Indeed, so far am I from thinking that it is proved from this that the letter to Domitius and Didymus was written under Valerian, that on the contrary I rather think it follows from it that the plague began to rage at Alexandria under Decius.

[65] For since, for the reasons adduced above, it does not seem much to be doubted which is shown to have been written under Decius, by other that that very often cited letter was written under Decius, it likewise does not seem much to be doubted that the plague recorded in it had already begun in the time of Decius. And in order that it may appear how deservedly I think the letter to Domitius and Didymus was written not under Valerian but under Decius, I add still other arguments to the reasons brought forward above. The Saint in the said letter records these things of the martyrs who suffered at Alexandria: This only it is fitting that you should know in general, that men and women, young men and old, girls and old women, soldiers and civilians, in short of every kind and age of men, some having overcome in the contest the blows of scourges, others the edge of the sword, others fire, have carried off crowns. By which words Dionysius without doubt treats of martyrs not long before crowned with the palm of martyrdom; for he is writing to friends who had asked that information be sent them by the Saint about some matters, not ancient ones certainly, but recently done. Now Pagi himself confesses that the words just recited treat of martyrs who suffered at Alexandria not under Valerian but under Decius. Wherefore, since the martyrs who suffered at Alexandria under Decius, who was slain in the year 251, could not have been regarded by Dionysius as a new and recent matter when he was giving the letter to Domitius and Didymus, if it is to be referred to Valerian, who began to persecute the Christians only in the year 257, it follows that it must be referred to Decius.

[66] arguments besides. Moreover, Domitius and Didymus had written to Dionysius, or at least had signified to him through messengers, that it had been brought to their ears in what way the Saint, from the hands of the soldiers by whom he was being led into exile, by the Mareotes who came upon them

had been snatched away; this is gathered from these words of Dionysius in the aforesaid letter to Domitius and Didymus: You have certainly heard how, when I and Gaius with Peter and Paul were being led in bonds by a centurion and by the magistrates, and the soldiers and attendants who were with them, certain men of the Mareotis coming upon us dragged us away by force, unwilling and not following of our own accord. Now since the Saint, as we have already shown, was snatched from the hands of the soldiers by the Mareotes in the year 249 or 250, it follows that Domitius and Didymus, if the Saint's letter of reply to them was written while the persecution of Valerian was seething, wrote to Dionysius only after seven years about what they had received by report as having happened to the Saint under Decius, and set it forth indeed as a thing recently done. But since this by no means appears likely, it likewise cannot appear likely that Dionysius's letter to Domitius and Didymus was written under Valerian. Add that it is not likely that the Saint, from narrating the things he suffered at the beginning of the Decian persecution, leapt straight away, without adding any indication of this matter, to explaining the things he sustained in the course of the persecution of Valerian; yet he would do this, as will be plain to one who considers it, if the letter to Domitius and Didymus is to be set under Valerian. All these things, then, having been considered, I affirm that it was most probably written under Decius.

§ VII. Dionysius attempts to extinguish the schism of Novatian that had arisen at Rome, and to this end writes various letters.

When Cornelius had been elected Pontiff, a schism at Rome When the Decian persecution was already somewhat abating, a new tempest disturbed the peace of the Church, concerning which, in order that what is to be said may be understood more clearly, I shall say some things here by way of preface. Novatus, a wicked African presbyter, having perpetrated many crimes in Africa, and hence fearing ill for himself from St. Cyprian and from the council that was to be celebrated by him at Carthage as soon as possible, left Africa and came to Rome in the year 251 after Easter, and, lying hidden there, entered, as it seems, into an association with Novatian, a presbyter equally wicked, and with some others. And since at that time, after the martyrdom of St. Fabian, the Roman Pontiff, the chair of St. Peter had already been vacant for a year and more on account of the savagery of the Decian persecution, and a new Pontiff was shortly to be created, he most shrewdly, as appears, worked that no other should be elected Pontiff than one under whom he could hope for impunity for his crimes. He therefore moved every stone to have Novatian raised to the supreme chair of the Church. But since afterwards, St. Cornelius having been elected, the matter had fallen out altogether otherwise, and he knew well that he would have no less to fear at Rome than in Africa if a Pontiff of this kind were allowed to govern the Church in quiet, he easily impelled Novatian, who was gaping after the Pontificate, to use his efforts to overthrow Cornelius. And by his arts he achieved so much that he drew over to his party even some of the confessors, and among them Maximus the presbyter, Nicostratus the deacon, Urbanus, Sidonius and Macarius, who with St. Moses had endured the most grievous and longest hardships of prison in the Decian persecution. All these things, as also most of what is to be related in the following number, you will find distinctly set out and clearly proved in our Work, volume IV of September, in the historical Commentary on St. Cornelius, § V and VI, so that it is not necessary to add anything here for their more distinct explanation or confirmation.

[68] Furthermore Novatian, confirmed in the crime he had conceived of invading the Pontificate by the accession of the confessors to the party of Novatus and his own, is stirred up by Novatian; and in order to extinguish it the Saint began to oppose the election of St. Cornelius, made in the said year 251 in the month of June, as is more probable, and to accuse him with fabricated charges, and to traduce him as an unworthy Pontiff, and thus most audaciously attacked that most holy Man in open schism. And in order to deceive more cautiously, he denied that he desired the pontifical chair, and even dared to affirm this with an oath interposed. Moreover, although he had determined with the Roman clergy before his schism that peace was to be granted to those who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius, if they were in danger of their life and gave signs of true penitence, after he saw that the Pontificate which he had canvassed for was conferred on Cornelius, he denied that peace of this kind could be imparted to the lapsed by the Church, and tried to stir up ill-will against this holy Pontiff from the fact that he granted the lapsed a place of salutary penitence and of peace in the Church. Meanwhile Cornelius sent letters concerning his election to the Pontificate to St. Cyprian, and so also, as becomes likely from this, to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria; and at almost the same time Novatian and his followers dispatched a letter full of abuse against St. Cornelius, in which they opposed his election, to the same St. Cyprian, and so, as again becomes likely from this, also to St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria; and that indeed written in the name of the confessors adhering to Novatian, in order to gain credit more easily, although these did not at all know what was said in it. Furthermore, the letters of both parties having been read, it was not difficult for Cyprian to judge on which of the two sides (see the said Commentary on St. Cornelius, § VI) the justice of the cause stood. This was doubtless likewise not difficult for our Saint, and I think that he therefore soon turned his counsels to this, that, since he held Cornelius's election to be legitimate, he might turn the Romans away from attacking it, and so extinguish the schism that had arisen, in its very beginning, before it gained strength.

[69] To this end St. Dionysius, as it appears to me at least, wrote two letters, one to the Roman brethren, the other wrote those two letters which Eusebius mentions in the Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 46, one to the Roman confessors mentioned above, who favoured the schism of Novatian, and at the same time the unmerciful doctrine of never receiving the lapsed to communion; the other to the Roman brethren concerning peace and at the same time penitence; concerning penitence indeed, in order probably to show that by this virtue all the gravest crimes, and so even the guilt of idolatry, could be washed away, which Novatian and his followers denied; and concerning peace, in order to induce them, divided between Cornelius and Novatian, to hold Cornelius alone as the legitimate Pontiff, or rather to incite them to enter into peace with Cornelius and with the Church, their mother, from which they had departed through the arts of Novatus and Novatian. This appears likely to me for the reason that Cyprian also then gave a letter of similar argument, the forty-third among Cyprian's letters in the new Venetian edition, to the Roman confessors adhering to Novatian, and in it exhorted them very much to return from schism to unity, and to the Church, their mother, from which they had shamefully fallen away.

[70] to the confessors, about July or August in the year 251, For the rest, although nothing is available which it is right to conjecture further about the two aforesaid letters, as being now lost, it nevertheless appears certain that they were written in the year 251, about the month of July or August. For in this year, in the month of June, as I have shown at number 68, Cornelius was elected Roman Pontiff; and probably after a month, or at least not much later, both the letter which he wrote concerning his election, and the other which the followers of Novatian wrote against Cornelius to Dionysius, were delivered into our Saint's hands. Wherefore, since he then probably did not long defer writing the two letters mentioned in the preceding number, as the ardent desire with which he burned of calming the schism that had arisen suggests, these will have been composed in the aforesaid year about the month of July or August. Moreover, as regards by name the letter written to the confessors, since these, the fraud and impiety of Novatian (see § VIII of the Commentary on St. Cornelius, already often cited) being at length detected, returned to the Church, with the sole exception of Nicostratus, who afterwards was made a pseudo-bishop in Africa by the faction of the Novatians, and this probably happened before the Roman council celebrated by St. Cornelius in the year 251 in the month of September or August (see number 189 of the Commentary on St. Cornelius, just cited again), it is necessary that the letter which our Saint gave to the aforesaid confessors, while still adhering to Novatian, was written in the month of August or even somewhat earlier, if it contributed anything to their return into the Church, as probably happened.

[71] and when afterwards Novatian had invaded the Roman chair, another But let what has been said suffice concerning the time at which our Saint wrote the two letters mentioned. I resume the series of events. While Dionysius, as I have already shown, and other holy men were diligently striving to extinguish early the schism that had arisen at Rome, Novatian, not long after it had been begun, increased it in a greater measure. For whereas at the beginning, having attacked St. Cornelius with calumnies alone, as I have already hinted above, he had cautiously concealed his ambition in order to deceive the more, and supported by the authority of the confessors whom he had drawn to his party by the arts of Novatus, had boasted himself the champion of Gospel discipline, and had openly protested that he did not at all desire the Pontificate, not very long after he laid aside that mask, and made plain to the world his ambition, and at the same time what he had long been turning over in his mind. For having received letters from the aforesaid confessors by which the Pontificate was offered to him, and having been ordained pseudo-bishop by a sacrilegious imposition of hands extorted from three bishops of simpler disposition, he was no longer at all ashamed to claim openly for himself the supreme chair of the Church, and, having sent letters and messengers in every direction, impudently signified that he had been raised to it. Yet lest he should seem to have shamefully invaded the Apostolic See, the old fox pretended that he had been driven against his will to occupy it. But if some bishops were deceived by this art, among them certainly was not Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria in the Eastern Church. For having received letters from Novatian, in which he laid the cause of the schism on certain brethren by whom he alleged that he had been impelled against his will to take up the Pontificate, he presses the old fox with a brief but efficacious letter, which is extant in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 45, in which it is doubtful whether the holy Man betrays more the rare sharpness of his intellect or the kindled ardour of his piety.

[72] Since, then, it wonderfully commends our Saint, it will help to transcribe it here entire. It runs thus: to him, which is recited here, Dionysius to Novatus (so Eusebius always writes, after the manner of the Greeks, for Novatian), his brother, greeting. If indeed you were brought to it (to assume the Pontificate) against your will, as you assert, you will show it to us by withdrawing of your own accord. It would have been better indeed to suffer anything whatever rather than that the Church of God should be torn apart, nor would it have been less glorious to undergo martyrdom so as not to tear the Church apart, than so as not to sacrifice to idols. Indeed, in my judgment at least, the former would have been more illustrious. For in the latter case one sustains martyrdom for his own single soul; in the former, for the whole Church. If, however, even now you persuade the brethren, or compel them, to return to concord, your merit will be greater than your fault. And the latter will not be imputed; but the former will be proclaimed. But if, the brethren refusing to obey, you cannot effect this, save your own soul. I wish you, being zealous for peace, farewell in the Lord. The Saint in the very title of this letter, as you see, learned reader, Novatian,

although separated from the Church by schism, deigns to honour with the name of Brother, and at the same time with a greeting. He does this out of superabundant charity towards the man, even though a schismatic; for in strictness he was bound to honour with the appellation of Brother and with a greeting only those united to the Catholic Church. Moreover, in Eusebius he abstains from the title of bishop; and however much, according to Jerome, On Illustrious Men, he assumes it, Rufinus agrees with Eusebius, and adhering to him on that account, I think the Saint probably did not ascribe the appellation of bishop to himself, in order thus to offend less Novatian, to whom, as a pseudo-bishop and nefarious invader of the Roman chair, he could not with a safe conscience attribute it.

[73] Rufinus, just cited, relates in book 6, chapters 34 and 35 of Eusebius as interpolated by him, that the letter already recited was written by St. Dionysius not to Novatian alone, not, however, to Novatus, but also to Novatus. Jerome on the contrary, likewise just cited, who judged the aforesaid letter worthy to be inserted almost entire in his treatise on the illustrious writers of the Church, expressly affirms that it was written to Novatian, and adds no mention of Novatus, so that in the opinion of that holy writer it was probably not written to the latter. And indeed that it was not written to Novatus becomes manifest from the very argument it treats. For in it Dionysius, as is now believed by all the learned, chiefly exhorts Novatian that, if he was truly raised to the Pontificate against his will and under compulsion, as he professed, he should show it by laying it down of his own accord; and an exhortation of this kind would by no means have been suited to Novatus, as one not raised to the Pontificate, and accordingly the aforesaid letter was not destined by Dionysius for him also. The Greeks, and with them Eusebius, are accustomed to confuse Novatus and Novatian with each other and frequently to write Novatus for Novatian, deceived by the likeness of the names. Rufinus probably did not observe this, and hence, since he at the same time saw that the letter which Eusebius asserts was written to Novatus is affirmed by other writers to have been written by Dionysius to Novatian, he established, in order to reconcile the writers with each other, that it was written to Novatus as well as to Novatian. However that may be, it appears certain to me that the said letter was written by our Saint to Novatian alone, and accordingly that in Eusebius, instead of Διονύσιος Νοουάτῳ, one should read Διονύσιος Ναυατιανῷ, as is in fact rightly read in the Chronicle of George Syncellus, written in Greek.

[74] he gave in the year 251, probably in the month of August, Let us now see about what time our Saint wrote the aforesaid letter to Novatian, and whether he gained any fruit from it. Since the two letters mentioned above, of which Dionysius gave one to the Roman brethren and the other to the Roman confessors still favouring Novatian, were written, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, before the news had been received of the Roman See being sacrilegiously occupied by Novatian; whereas the letter to Novatian was written only after the news of that matter had been received; there is no doubt that it is later than those, written, as I have already shown, in the month of July or August in the year 251, and accordingly that it was probably not written before August of the same year. As regards now the second point, namely whether Dionysius gained any fruit from his letter to Novatian, it is certain that this pseudo-pontiff and heresiarch persevered obstinate in his schism up to his death, so that our Saint's letter to him lacked absolutely all fruit. But the other of his two letters, just cited again, written to the Roman confessors, met, as appears, with better success. For these, as I have already said above, the impiety of Novatian being at length detected, returned to the Church, from which, deceived by the arts of Novatus and Novatian, they had separated themselves, and in this happy return Dionysius's letter to them probably had at least some part.

[75] and afterwards two others to the confessors, in the first of which However that may be, it is certain that our Saint wrote two further letters to the aforesaid confessors, when they had already returned into the Church and been reconciled with St. Cornelius. Eusebius testifies to this in book 6, chapter 46, writing thus: Again (St. Dionysius wrote) another (letter) to the confessors established there (at Rome), who even then still favoured the opinion of Novatus (rather, Novatian). He also sent two other letters to these same men, after they had returned to the Church. From these two letters I suspect that the aforesaid confessors gave a common letter concerning their reconciliation to St. Dionysius. For St. Cyprian likewise wrote letters to them when they had returned from the schism of Novatian to the Church; but he did not do this except after he had previously heard of their reconciliation from themselves by letters; from which it becomes sufficiently likely that our Saint used the same manner of proceeding, so that the aforesaid confessors probably wrote to him a common letter concerning their reconciliation. And indeed that they did this becomes more likely besides for this reason, that they most probably signified their reconciliation at least to the chief churches dispersed through the world and to their bishops, so that they who by their error and authority had drawn others into the schism of Novatian might lead the same back to the Church by their example. Furthermore, to return to the two letters of our Saint mentioned in the last place, it will help to assign in some fashion the time at which they were written and the argument they treat. Since the illegitimate assumption of Novatian as Pontiff, made by the schismatics, preceded somewhat the return of the Roman Confessors into the Church, there is no doubt that the latter two letters of our Saint to them, when they had already returned into the Church, were written later than the letter to Novatian, when already created pseudo-pontiff. Wherefore, since this, as I have already shown, was written about the month of August in the year 251, it is necessary that those were written in the same year (for this does not seem to be doubted), either when August was already advanced, or even later.

[76] As regards now their argument, in the former Dionysius most probably congratulated the confessors on their happy return into the Church; he congratulates them on their happy return into the Church, he wrote. in the latter he perhaps treated of the opinion of Novatian, pernicious to the salvation of souls, by which he wished every hope of pardon to be closed to the lapsed, and which our Saint may have attempted to refute more fully. I think so because this latter letter was written on the occasion either of Novatian's schism or of his harsh opinion concerning the lapsed; but it does not seem to have been written by Dionysius on the occasion of the schism, since he had already congratulated the confessors on their happy return to the Church by the other letter. What makes me believe this more easily besides are the letters which our Saint wrote in great number in every direction against the harsh opinion of Novatian concerning the lapsed. Of these letters, and of our Saint's opinion concerning the lapsed which they manifest, I have determined to treat in the following §. Nevertheless, in order that you may understand beforehand, studious reader, in some general way, how greatly Dionysius abhorred Novatian's doctrine concerning the lapsed, it will help to set down here first what the Saint records on this argument in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 8, in the letter to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff. Here are the words: We deservedly abhor Novatian, since he has torn the Church apart, and has dragged some of the brethren into impiety and blasphemy; who has brought in a nefarious doctrine concerning God (namely, wishing that God never forgives sins to sinners, however penitent), and calumniates our most merciful Lord Jesus Christ as though implacable: who moreover obliterates the sacred laver, and overturns the faith and confession which precede baptism, and drives the Holy Spirit utterly away from them, although some hope remains, either that He still remains in them, or that He will return to them. Thus Dionysius, betraying in general his opinion both on the schism of Novatian and on the lapsed, which the plan of my undertaking requires me now to treat specifically.

§ VIII. The multitude of the lapsed in the persecution of Decius, and what Dionysius determined in their cause.

The lapsed in the persecution, of whom there was a huge multitude, The long tranquillity which the Church had enjoyed before the reign of Decius had so relaxed the minds of the Christians from the vigour of the faith that at the first onset of the persecution that arose very many, in almost all parts of the Roman empire, shamefully fell away from the Christian religion. Among the churches which mourned the rather frequent fall of their members more lamentably, the church of Alexandria, committed to the care of St. Dionysius, deserves to be mentioned in no last place. The Saint himself teaches us this in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 41, in the letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, writing thus of the Christians who lapsed at Alexandria at the very beginning of the Decian persecution: And already the edict of the emperor (Decius) was at hand (at Alexandria against the Christians), showing almost that very thing which was foretold by our Lord, horrifying and terrible, so that even the elect themselves, if it were possible, should suffer scandal. All certainly were terrified in a wonderful manner, and many indeed of the more illustrious at once came forward through fear. Others, who administered public affairs, came dragged by the very necessity of their offices. Others were brought by acquaintances and familiars, and, being cited by name, approached the impure and profane sacrifices; some indeed pale and trembling, as though they were not to sacrifice, but were rather themselves to be immolated to the idols in the place of victims, so that they were derided by the surrounding multitude; since they showed openly to all that they were of a faint heart both for dying and for sacrificing.

[78] and a great diversity, which is here partly assigned, But others ran more readily to the altars, boldly affirming that they had never before been Christians; of whom the Lord foretold most truly of old that men of this kind would with difficulty attain salvation. Of the rest, some followed one or the other of those we have mentioned, some gave themselves to flight, some were seized; of whom some, when they had advanced as far as chains and custody, and certain ones had even remained some days in prison, nevertheless abjured the faith before they were brought into court. And some, when they had for a while bravely sustained torments, lost heart before the remaining punishments that were threatened. Thus far Dionysius, in which words he also fittingly distinguishes the various kinds of the lapsed, of whom some had sinned more, others less. These can be reduced to two different classes of the lapsed, of which one would be constituted by those who had sacrificed to idols or burned incense, the other by those who had simply abjured the faith. The former were called sacrificati or thurificati; the latter, deniers. To these two classes of the lapsed a third also must be joined, named that of the libellatici, which is not mentioned by Dionysius, and whether it had place at Alexandria I do not know. The libellatici were less guilty than the other lapsed, yet not innocent. They were so called from the libelli of security which, in order not to be compelled to profess the faith publicly and thereby be exposed to danger, they had obtained from the magistrates for a price given, on the condition that they should be inscribed in the public Acts, by which credit would be given, although falsely, that they had sacrificed. Let these things noted concerning the lapsed suffice for a clearer knowledge of the matters to be treated here: whoever desires more, let him go in our Work to the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, whose § VIII concerning the various

kinds of the lapsed, and especially concerning the libellatici, discourses at length and at the same time accurately.

[79] [that they were to be admitted to peace at the point of death, if they repented of the deed, the Roman clergy] Furthermore, very many of the lapsed, hating their former perfidy while the persecution was still lasting, most ardently demanded to be admitted into the peace of the Church, that is, to the pardon of their offence and to the communion of the most holy Eucharist. The Roman clergy, which after the death of St. Fabian, the Roman Pontiff, crowned with martyrdom at the beginning of the Decian persecution, fulfilled all the parts of a most vigilant pastor while the Roman See was vacant, had determined in the cause of the lapsed that peace should be granted to those in danger of their life, if they had first repented of the deed; the rest should indeed be roused to penitence, but in such a way that judgment concerning them should be suspended until a Pontiff should be substituted in the place of St. Fabian. This is clear from two letters, of which the Roman clergy wrote one to the clergy of Carthage and the other to St. Cyprian while the Roman See was vacant. For in the former, which is second in order among the Cyprianic letters, they write thus, opportunely for our purpose: You see therefore, brethren, that you also ought to do this, … that if any who have fallen into this temptation (the abjuration of the faith) begin to be seized with sickness, and do penance for their deed, and desire communion; they must certainly be succoured, whether widows, or the bedridden, or those who cannot present themselves, or those who are in prisons, or those shut out from their homes, they certainly ought to have those who minister to them. But catechumens too, seized with sickness, shall not be disappointed of being succoured: and in the latter, which occupies the thirty-first place among the Cyprianic letters, they record these things: We believe that the care of the lapsed is to be moderately tempered; so that meanwhile, while we wait for a bishop to be given us by God, the cause of those who can bear the delays of postponement may be held in suspense; but those whose pressing departure at the end of their life cannot bear delay, having done penance and frequently professed detestation of their deeds, if they have shown by tears, by groans, by weeping the signs of a sorrowing and truly penitent mind, when no hope of living remains according to man, then at last are to be succoured cautiously and solicitously; God Himself knowing what He will do with such, and how He weighs the balances of His judgment; while we nevertheless take anxious care that neither wicked men praise our ready facility, nor the truly penitent accuse our cruelty as harsh.

[80] St. Cyprian in Africa, adhering closely to the footsteps of the Romans, [and St. Cyprian, while the persecution was still lasting, determined, and this too] likewise decreed that absolutely all the lapsed placed in danger of death, namely those who had repented of their offence before contracting the illness, were to be granted the benefit of reconciliation: but concerning the lapsed not in danger of life he determined nothing, but, just as the Roman clergy had ordered all of them to wait until the creation of a new Pontiff, so he himself ordered them to wait until peace was granted to the Church, so that afterwards something might be decreed concerning them by common counsel. All these things you will find clearly explained and solidly proved in §§13 and 14 of the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, already cited, which you will therefore, studious reader, rightly consult. I, lest I do what has already been done, add nothing more concerning the said statute of St. Cyprian in the cause of the lapsed while the persecution was still lasting, but I now inquire what our Saint decreed was to be observed regarding the lapsed of his flock, who, as I have already shown, were not few in number. He himself again teaches us this in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 44, in the letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, on the occasion of the story of Serapion, lapsed and dying, to be inserted later in this Commentary, writing thus: I had given commands that to the dying (who had previously lapsed in the persecution), if they asked, and especially if they had before humbly requested it, pardon should be granted, so that they might depart from this life full of good hope. This decree of Dionysius regarding the dying lapsed, although altogether not different from the decree of St. Cyprian, and so of the Roman clergy, just set out, nevertheless differs somewhat in this, that it seems to extend the benefit of reconciliation also to the lapsed who, although they had not asked for pardon before contracting the illness, nevertheless requested it when already dying; whereas none of these ought to have been granted the benefit of reconciliation by the decree of Cyprian and the Roman clergy, if it is taken strictly.

[81] Moreover it may also be doubted whether, just as St. Cyprian published his aforesaid decree concerning the lapsed while the persecution of Decius was still raging, so also our Saint issued his at that time. St. Dionysius did; For neither in Eusebius nor elsewhere does anything occur by which you could establish for certain whether he did it while the persecution of Decius was still raging, or afterwards. That he did it nevertheless while the persecution was still lasting appears more probable to me for this reason, that after peace had been restored to the Church he most probably decreed, as I shall show, that not only the lapsed in danger of life, but also any others whatever, provided they seriously repented of the deed, were to be admitted to pardon and to the communion of the most holy Eucharist. Wherefore, since St. Cyprian likewise framed a similar decree when the persecution of Decius was somewhat abating, and nevertheless, while it was still raging more violently, had previously issued the other mentioned above, I think also that our Saint issued the decree we have here discussed while the same persecution was still raging. He therefore provided for the salvation of the lapsed of his flock with foresight and in good time. But while St. Dionysius, Cyprian and other bishops, no less remarkable for virtue than for learning, were thus devoting themselves to the salvation of souls, a heresy exceedingly pernicious to that same salvation of souls took its rise at Rome. Novatian, a Roman presbyter, who at first, as I have already shown, had determined with the Roman clergy that penitent lapsed placed in danger of death were to be admitted to peace, when Cornelius had been elected Pontiff began to contend that absolutely no hope of pardon remained for the lapsed, however penitent, and having afterwards been made pseudo-pontiff, disseminated this heresy, in order to establish his schism, partly by legates and partly by letters sent through the whole Church.

[82] when it was abating, St. Cornelius celebrated a synod, Eusebius, in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 43, writes thus of Novatian, whom, as I have already advised, he wrongly calls Novatus after the manner of the Greeks, on the occasion of the aforesaid heresy: Novatus, a presbyter of the Roman church, puffed up with arrogance against those (who imparted peace to the lapsed after penitence), as though no hope of salvation remained for them thereafter, even though they fulfilled all things that pertain to sincere conversion and pure confession, became the author of a certain sect of his own, of those who, puffed up by swelling of mind, surnamed themselves Cathari (that is, the pure). This sect or heresy of Novatian furnished our Saint with no less abundant material for writing than the schism of the same raised in the Roman Church, of which chiefly, and of the letters written by him on its occasion, I treated in the preceding paragraph. We must now speak of the letters which the aforesaid heresy, joined by Novatian to the schism, compelled Dionysius to write, as also of the Saint's doctrine concerning the lapsed contained in them. Nevertheless, in order that the studious reader may understand more clearly what is to be said, and perceive that it is consonant with the truth, I first set out what was determined, both by St. Cornelius and by St. Cyprian, when the persecution was already abating, in the cause of the lapsed and against Novatian and his followers. I begin with St. Cornelius. This holy Pontiff, in order to meet the evils of the Church arising from the schism of Novatian and from his opinion pernicious to the salvation of souls, gathered a council at Rome. The acts of this synod have perished; nevertheless Eusebius teaches us, in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 43, what was chiefly done in it.

[83] and St. Cyprian another, in which it was decreed that the lapsed, For there this writer has thus: On account of which matter (the impious opinion of Novatian concerning the lapsed), when a synod had been gathered at Rome (by Cornelius), in which sixty bishops indeed, and presbyters and deacons many more, assembled: and when the prelates in the provinces had consulted separately on what was to be done, a decree of this kind was promulgated to all: That Novatus * and those who together with him had exalted themselves too insolently, and whoever had presumed to consent to his most inhuman opinion, foreign to fraternal charity (namely, that the lapsed were never to be admitted to peace), were to be held as aliens from the Church; but that the brethren who had fallen into calamity (the desertion of the faith) were to be healed and cherished with the remedy of penitence. There are still extant letters of Cornelius, bishop of the Romans, sent to Fabius, prelate of the church of Antioch, in which both the acts of the Roman synod and the opinions of all throughout Italy and Africa and the other provinces of those regions are declared. This Roman council (see the ninth paragraph of the Commentary on St. Cornelius, already often cited) was celebrated in the year 251, probably in the month of August or September, and it had already been preceded by one month or another by the synod of Carthage convoked by St. Cyprian. Of this synod Eusebius makes mention thus in the place just cited: There are besides other letters written in the Latin tongue, of Cyprian and of the other prelates who were gathered with him in Africa, from which it is gathered that it also pleased them that succour should be given to those who had fallen into temptation (the desertion of the faith), and that the author (Novatian) of the nefarious opinion (of every hope of pardon being closed to the lapsed), together with those who had gone over to his party, should deservedly be cast out from the fellowship of the Catholic Church. Those letters of St. Cyprian which Eusebius here cites are without doubt the booklet mentioned by St. Cyprian in letter 52 to Antonianus, in which the several heads of the decisions sanctioned by the synod of Carthage, or canons, were contained.

[84] Wherefore, since the said letters have perished, there is no doubt [even those not dying, after completing fitting penances, were to be admitted to peace;] that the canons of the aforesaid synod have likewise had the same fate. From the said letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, however, written after the synod, we understand that in it, concerning the lapsed not placed even in danger of death, of whom we are here treating, it was sanctioned that neither should the hope of communion and peace be altogether denied to the lapsed, lest they should fail the more through despair, and, because the Church was closed to them, should follow the world and live like gentiles; nor yet again should the Gospel censure be loosed, so that they should rashly rush forward to communion; but that penitence should be long drawn out, and fatherly clemency be sorrowfully entreated, and the causes and wills and necessities of each be examined, to this end, namely, that a penitence proportioned to the gravity of each lapsed person's offence might be imposed. Cyprian enumerates some kinds of these in the same letter in these words: Nor should you think, dearest brother, as it seems to some, that the libellatici ought to be put on a level with the sacrificati (I have furnished information about the libellatici and sacrificati at number 78), since even among those themselves who have sacrificed both the condition and the cause are frequently different. For they are not to be put on a level, the one who at once leapt forward willingly to the nefarious sacrifice, and the one who, having struggled and contended long, came to this deadly work by necessity; the one who betrayed both himself and all his people, and the one who himself for

all, approaching the danger, protected his wife and children and his whole house by undergoing the peril himself; the one who compelled his tenants or friends to the crime, and the one who spared his tenants and farmers, and even received into his roof and hospitality very many brethren who were withdrawing as exiles and fugitives, showing and offering to the Lord many living and unharmed souls, to intercede for one wounded soul. Since, then, among those themselves who have sacrificed there is much diversity, what harshness is it, and how bitter a severity, to join the libellatici with those who have sacrificed?

[85] To these different classes of the lapsed, and to others which you might not unfittingly add to those enumerated here, St. Cyprian which our Saint too is shown then to have willed and taught, and the other fathers of the synod of Carthage sanctioned, according to equity and goodness, as I have already advised and as is clearly proved in the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, § XXII and following, that different penances should also be imposed according to the gravity of the crimes, some heavier and longer than others. I now return to St. Dionysius. It does not seem to be doubted that he did likewise in Egypt what we have already seen St. Cornelius do at Rome and St. Cyprian in Africa, and accordingly sanctioned, first indeed that all penitent lapsed were to be admitted to peace, and that different penances were to be enjoined on each according to the different gravity of their crimes; and then that Novatian and his followers were to be held as aliens from the body of the Church. As regards the first, of which alone we have to treat here, it is gathered chiefly from the Saint's letter to the brethren established throughout Egypt; for of this, although now lost, Eusebius, in book 6, chapter 46, records these things: He (St. Dionysius) also wrote a letter concerning penitence to the brethren established throughout Egypt: in which he both sets out his opinion concerning the lapsed and distinguishes the degrees of crimes.

[86] from his letter to the brethren established throughout Egypt, From which words, since he is said in them to have set out his opinion concerning the lapsed and to have distinguished the various degrees of crimes, it becomes most likely that he taught in the aforesaid letter that on the penitent lapsed, when they are admitted to peace, different penances were to be imposed according to the different degree of their crimes, or according to the different gravity of their crimes; for unless this is so, to what purpose, I ask, in the aforesaid letter, in which he treats of penitence and of the lapsed and delivers his opinion concerning them, does he distinguish the different degrees or classes of crimes? Hence it now follows that the Saint wished penitent lapsed to be admitted to peace not only when they were in danger of their life, but also when they were not in that danger. For why otherwise would he have prescribed different penances for them, as he most probably did, according to the diversity of their crimes? Certainly it is not likely that penances were established by Dionysius for the dying according to the diversity of their crimes. Dionysius, says the Alexandrian Chronicle at pages 633 and 635, bishop of Alexandria, since many had fallen away, lapsing in the Decian proscription and punishments of the Christians, having given a place of penitence, with outstretched hand granted pardon of their offence to many, and on that matter gave letters to many bishops, in order, namely, as is likely, to show them that Christians lapsed in the persecution were to be cured with a remedy proportioned to their offence.

[87] [and from three others besides, which he wrote to various persons, it is gathered.] I certainly think the Saint taught this in three other letters, likewise mentioned by Eusebius in the place just cited, and written concerning penitence. Of these the first is to Conon, bishop of the church of Hermopolis, the second to the brethren of the church of Laodicea, and the third finally to the Armenians. In these three letters, as also in the letter mentioned in the preceding number, Dionysius aimed chiefly, as far as I think, at making those to whom he wrote, and whom he had probably heard to be more inclined towards Novatian's harsh heresy regarding the lapsed, wholly alien from and averse to it. Hence I further conclude that all of them were written after the schism of Novatian had indeed arisen, as it is easy to gather from what has been said, but not later than the year 256 or even 255. For, as follows from what has just been said, they were written when not all the Eastern churches had yet proscribed Novatian's opinion concerning the lapsed with unanimous consent, and were hence divided by discord among themselves. Now Dionysius writes in the letter to Pope Stephen, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 5, that all the prelates of the churches (of the Eastern ones, namely) everywhere think one and the same thing, and exult with incredible joy on account of the peace unexpectedly restored; that is, as Eusebius interprets in the book just cited, chapter 4, that all the churches everywhere, the fury of the persecution having already been softened, detesting the turbulent novelty of Novatus *, had entered into peace among themselves. Wherefore, since Dionysius's letter to Stephen cited here was written neither later nor earlier, as we shall show below, than the year 256, it is necessary that all the letters mentioned above, prior to the peace of the churches which that letter mentions, were written not later than the year 256 or even 255.

* Novatian

* of Novatian

§ IX. He writes to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, and attempts to turn him from Novatian's opinion concerning the lapsed.

The Saint to Fabius, who was somewhat addicted to the schism of Novatian, Although the schism of Novatian, as I have already shown, had been proscribed in Africa and Italy with almost unanimous consent everywhere, there were still some at Antioch who were striving to establish it. Eusebius teaches us this in book 6, chapter 46, writing these things of St. Dionysius of Alexandria: He writes besides to Cornelius, bishop of the city of Rome, whose letters written against Novatus (read Novatian) he had received: in which letter indeed he signifies that he had been invited by Helenus, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and by the others who had come together with him, namely Firmilian of Cappadocia and Theoctistus of the province of Palestine, bishops, to come to the synod of Antioch, in which certain men were attempting to confirm the schism of Novatus. He writes also that it had been announced to him that Fabius had indeed met his last day, and that Demetrianus had been constituted bishop of the church of Antioch in his place. Fabius himself, bishop of Antioch, whose death Dionysius announced to St. Cornelius according to the words of Eusebius already recited, was somewhat addicted both to the schism of Novatian and to his severe heresy concerning the lapsed. The first is clear from Eusebius, who, exhibiting in book 6, chapter 44 another Fragment of the letter of St. Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, prefaces these words, which it is strange that Valois did not render entire: Ἀυτῷ τούτῳ Φαβίῳ ὑποκατακλινομένῳ πῶς τῷ σχίσματι καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ κατ᾽ Αλεξάνδρειαν ἐπιστείλας etc. Writing to the same Fabius, who in some part inclined to the schism, Dionysius of Alexandria etc.; where it will become plain to one who considers it that the discourse is of the schism of Novatian, from the two chapters of Eusebius of which one precedes and the other follows the chapter of the same Eusebius just cited. As regards the second, namely that Fabius was somewhat addicted to Novatian's severe heresy concerning the lapsed, it is made manifest from our Saint's letter to the same Fabius, partly recited by Eusebius in book 6, chapters 41, 42 and 44. For in it Dionysius, as will become evident from its Fragments presently to be transcribed here, deliberately brings forward many things which are apt to turn away from Novatian's heresy concerning the lapsed any man not altogether estranged from reason and from a sound sense of the divine clemency towards sinners.

[89] This letter was written by St. Dionysius in the year 251 or certainly in the year 252. For, as it is easy to gather from what has already been said, it was written after the schism of Novatian arose in the year 251, he wrote in the year 251 or 252 a letter, and by it and Flavius, to whom it was written, departed from the living in the year 252, as our Du Bois teaches in the chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch prefixed to volume IV of July. Later than this letter is the other, which I have already mentioned, given by our Saint to Pope Cornelius. For in it Dionysius, as Eusebius testifies in the place just cited, asserted that he had learned of the death of Flavius, bishop of Antioch, and so he wrote it after the letter to Flavius, just mentioned here; nor is there doubt that he did so in the year 252: for in this year, as I have already said, Fabius, bishop of Antioch, after whose death it was written, met his day, nor did Pope Cornelius, to whom it was written, prolong his life beyond the fifth day of August of the same year, as you will find proved in the Commentary on St. Cornelius, very often cited. Let us now see what things in our Saint's letter to Fabius are apt to lead away from Novatian's opinion concerning the lapsed. Nothing, as far as I think, in the whole of that letter, great as it is, occurs more pressing than the miracle which God worked in favour of the old man Serapion, who had lapsed in the persecution, and afterwards repented and earnestly prayed to be admitted to the peace of the Church, whom also the divine clemency did not permit to depart from the living without that peace which he had sought with humble prayers. I transcribe here the whole narration of our Saint, which is extant in Eusebius, book 6, chapter 44, as I advised before that I would do.

[90] he attempted to lead him away from Novatian's opinion, I will set before you, Dionysius writes to Fabius, one example which happened among us. There was in this city (Alexandria) a certain old man Serapion, of the number of the faithful; who for the rest of the time of his past life had been liable to no fault. But having lapsed in the persecution, he had many times asked for pardon, and no one had paid attention to him, because he had sacrificed. The same man afterwards, seized with illness, remained for three days without the use of his voice and without all sense. At length on the fourth day, being revived a little, he calls to him his grandson by his daughter, and, how long, he says, will you detain me, son? Hasten, I pray, and absolve me as quickly as possible. Fetch me one of the presbyters. When he had said these things, his voice again failed him. The boy ran to the presbyter. It was already night. And the presbyter was sick. But since I had given commands that to the dying, if they asked, and especially if they had before humbly requested it, pardon should be granted, so that they might depart from this life full of good hope; he gave the boy a small portion of the Eucharist, bidding him dip it in water and drop it into the old man's mouth. The boy therefore returns, bringing the morsel. And as he approached, before he entered, the old man, revived again, said: You have come, son, and the presbyter himself could not come. But do quickly what you have been ordered, and dismiss me. Presently the boy dipped the morsel and poured it into the old man's mouth, who, having swallowed it little by little, breathed out his soul. Thus Dionysius of Serapion, presently, in order to bend Fabius to clemency towards the lapsed and draw him away from Novatian's opinion, subjoining these things: Does it not then appear plainly that he (the old man Serapion) was reserved, and remained in life for so long, until he should be reconciled, and, the crime now being blotted out, could be acknowledged and proclaimed by Christ for the many good works which he had done?

[91] from the clemency of the martyrs towards the lapsed Certainly it is manifest, as Dionysius also hints by his question, that Serapion was prodigiously kept so long in life for no other end than that he should not depart from it before he had been received to pardon and to the communion of the Eucharist. Hence the Saint could not undeservedly have inferred that the opinion of those who cut off from the lapsed every hope of pardon is altogether alien from the clemency of God, who wills not the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. But Dionysius sharply censures that opinion by another reasoning besides. It was then the established custom, and had long been so, that the lapsed, having become penitent, had recourse to the suffrages of the martyrs, and obtained from them libelli of communion, by the benefit of which they were then more easily admitted by the Church to peace. From lapsed of this kind, with whom the martyrs had communicated in prayers and food, perhaps even having given them libelli of communion, he forms another argument against the heresy of Novatian. He first narrates, in the letter to Fabius in Eusebius, book 6, chapters 41 and 42, how many and how great evils the Christians at Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt endured, both in the persecution stirred up by the popular movement and in the other which followed it by the edict of Decius, and how many of them shed their blood for the faith, and then presently subjoins those things by which again, with many questions heaped up, he most openly condemns and at the same time refutes the opinion of those who close to the lapsed in the persecution the hope of pardon.

[92] For the rest, he says, these divine martyrs, who are now assessors of Christ, teaching that they are to be admitted to public communion, and sharers of His kingdom, and partakers of His judgment, about to judge with Him, while they were here among us, took up certain of the brethren who had lapsed and been convicted of sacrificing to idols, and, seeing their conversion and penitence, since they judged that it could please Him who prefers the repentance of the sinner to his death, admitted them, and gathered them, and received them into their assembly (having probably also given them libelli of communion according to the custom then received), and communicated with them in prayers and food. What then, brethren, do you counsel us concerning these? What ought we to do? Shall we accede to the sentence of the martyrs, and defend the matter judged by them, or rather the favour granted, and deal kindly with those on whom they bestowed compassion? Or shall we on the contrary make their judgment void, and set ourselves up as examiners and judges of their sentence, afflict clemency with grief, overturn the established order, provoke the indignation of God Himself? Having recited these words of Dionysius, Eusebius presently subjoins: And Dionysius seems to have added these things deliberately, speaking of those who in the time of persecution had lapsed through weakness of mind. So it certainly is, as this writer remarks. For the Saint means, as appears, to show against Novatian, towards whose opinion Fabius was inclining, from the lapsed who were to be admitted to peace by the suffrage of the martyrs, that in general all the lapsed, provided they sufficiently repented of the deed, were to be admitted to pardon of their offence and to the communion of the Eucharist, and that probably even if they were by no means in danger of their life: for he hints that those were to be admitted to peace whom the martyrs had received into their assembly and communion: and these had admitted into their communion very many who were in perfectly good health and not placed at the point of death.

[93] On the text of our Saint that has been recited, Valois cleverly observes (I use the words of Ruinart in the Select and Genuine Acts of the martyrs) which is distinguished from the private kind; that there was a twofold communion in the Church which could be granted to the lapsed, the first private and of prayers; the other public and of the Sacraments. He calls private that which was granted by private persons, not by the bishop: as when martyrs or confessors had kindly received the lapsed who had recourse to them and implored their intercession; or had permitted them to pray to God with them. But this communion gave no right to receiving the sacraments of the Church or to approaching the public prayers of the Church, although it roused the bishops to deal more mildly with lapsed of this kind. The other communion, however, was that by which the right of participating in the Sacraments of the Church and in the public prayers was restored to the penitent. These things being thus explained (the said Ruinart subjoins), it is now easy to understand that Dionysius, in the Fragment of the letter which we have brought forward, treats of penitents who, having been granted the first communion by the martyrs, had not yet obtained the other from the bishops. I agree with the said Ruinart: penitents of this kind are without doubt treated in the text just brought forward.

[94] nor in this way with St. Cyprian But here now it can be asked whether our Saint, who desires that the lapsed, admitted to communion by the martyrs and perhaps granted libelli by them, and not reduced to extremity, should be received into favour, is not in conflict with St. Cyprian. For this holy bishop (see in our Work the Commentary prefatory to his Life, §§12 and 13), in three different letters, which in the new Venetian edition from Baluze's recension are the ninth, tenth and eleventh, sharply rebukes certain presbyters and deacons of his clergy because they admitted to communion lapsed who had been granted libelli by the martyrs, and accordingly he may seem to have wished that neither should libelli be given to the lapsed by the martyrs, nor should those granted them by the latter be admitted to peace. I confess, Cyprian wrote those three letters of rebuke, and yet he is not on that account in conflict with St. Dionysius, who desires that the lapsed with whom the martyrs communicated be admitted to peace. For Cyprian wrote the said letters while the persecution of Decius was still lasting, and he wished the admission of the lapsed into the Church to be deferred until, peace having been granted to the Church and their cause examined, something certain should have been determined concerning them in common. And so in the aforesaid letter he sharply reproves some presbyters and deacons of his clergy for this reason, that, before the persecution was extinguished, against the will of their bishop and the vigour of Ecclesiastical discipline, they rashly admitted to peace lapsed who had been granted libelli by the martyrs, and that without sufficient previous penitence, and did not fear to impart to them the most holy Body of Christ.

[95] does Dionysius conflict Certainly Cyprian, after peace had been restored to the Church, wished all the lapsed, and accordingly those also who had been granted libelli by the martyrs, to be admitted to pardon of their offence and to the communion of the Eucharist, provided they had previously undergone a penance proportioned to their crime, and he himself, together with the synod which he had gathered at Carthage, expressly decreed that they were to be admitted. This is clear from what we discussed in the preceding §, and the same is most clearly proved in the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, just cited again, §22 and following, to which I therefore, for brevity's sake, refer the studious reader who desires to have what was here to be proved in the first place proved more fully. As regards now the libelli granted by martyrs and confessors in favour of the lapsed, certainly Cyprian too did not disapprove of such libelli being given; but he deservedly chastised their abuse, and wished them to be brought to the ecclesiastical laws and the ancient custom. This is clear from Cyprian's own letter 10, cited in the preceding number, inscribed to the martyrs and confessors. For in it Cyprian addresses the martyrs and confessors thus: But you ought also to bring this to your diligence and correct it, that you designate by name those to whom you desire peace to be given. For I hear that libelli are made out for some in such a way that it is said: Let so-and-so communicate with his household; which was never at all done by the martyrs: so that an uncertain and blind petition afterwards heaps up ill-will against us. For it extends widely when it is said: so-and-so with his household; and there can be presented to us twenty and thirty and more, who are asserted to be kinsmen and connections and freedmen and domestics of him who receives the libellus. And therefore I ask that those whom you yourselves see, whom you know, whose penitence you perceive to be near to satisfaction, you designate by name in the libellus, and so direct to us letters consonant with faith and discipline. Cyprian, then, no more disapproved of the lapsed being granted libelli by the martyrs than he wished pardon of their offence to be denied to these, when penitent, even when not brought to extremity, once the persecution had ceased; and accordingly he does not oppose our Saint; since he likewise, as I have already shown in the preceding §, thought that pardon of their offence was to be imparted to penitent lapsed when the persecution had ceased, even if they were not placed in danger of death, and did not wish it given to them, while the persecution was not yet calmed, unless they were in danger of life.

[96] Let us now return to the letter which we have discussed here, [who by the said letter seems to have brought it about that Fabius convoked a synod;] and consider what fruit Dionysius gained from it. Our Du Bois, in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Antioch prefixed to volume IV of July, number 86, judges that partly by our Saint's letter to Fabius mentioned in this paragraph, and partly by the four letters of St. Cornelius to the same Fabius cited by Eusebius, book 6, chapter 43, and by St. Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 66, it was brought about that Fabius himself, if he was not bent by those letters to the side of Cornelius and of all the churches, at least took care that a synod should be proclaimed at Antioch on that business not long before he was taken from among the living, which happened in the year 252. In support of this opinion he cites the text concerning St. Dionysius of Alexandria, drawn from Eusebius and transcribed by us at number 88, in which the Saint announces that he had been invited by Helenus, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and by the others who had come together with him, namely Firmilian of Cappadocia and Theoctistus, bishops of the province of Palestine, to a council to be celebrated at Antioch, and also informed of the death of Fabius; and he writes in such a way as to insinuate that the latter happened after the former. From which, as Du Bois thinks, it rightly follows that the synod of Antioch was decreed and proclaimed before Fabius died, and accordingly that he probably proclaimed it before his death, or at least took care that it should be proclaimed. This opinion of Du Bois certainly seems to me very likely.

[97] But to this opinion of his already proposed he subjoins: Nevertheless in the synodical libellus, volume 1 of Labbe's Councils, this, however, as appears, was not celebrated without a new convocation. column 719, this synod, gathered at Antioch, is attributed to Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius; because he carried out what Fabius, death intervening, had been unable to do. By which words he seems to hint that the synod mentioned in the place just cited in Labbe was celebrated by Demetrianus on the convocation made by Fabius before his death, or caused to be made, so that he did not use another convocation for celebrating it: but this appears less likely to me. For, as Du Bois himself builds up in the place just cited, the aforesaid synod, celebrated at Antioch by Demetrianus in the cause of Novatian, was the reconciler of the peace which Dionysius, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 5, in the letter to Pope Stephen, announces that all the churches of the East and their bishops had entered upon, detesting with unanimous consent the turbulent novelty, or heresy, of Novatian. Now since the aforesaid letter of our Saint to Pope Stephen was most probably not written before the year 256 (as I shall show below), and the peace entered upon

concord among the churches, St. Dionysius announces it to Stephen in it as a new thing, it appears most likely that the synod which was the reconciler of the said peace was not celebrated before the year 225. Wherefore, since Fabius, or Flavius, departed from the living before August of the year 252, as I have already shown at number 89, and so could not convoke a synod at Antioch after that time, an interval of at least three years will have to be established between the convocation and the celebration of this synod, if it was celebrated by Demetrianus on the convocation of Fabius. Wherefore, since this, considering the custom of those times, is not likely, it appears to me little credible that the synod of Antioch was celebrated by Demetrianus solely on the convocation of Fabius, or Flavius, without a new convocation having been sent out first. Let us suppose, then, that after the death of Fabius the plan of celebrating a synod against the Novatians was for a while suspended, and not put into execution before a new convocation had been made by Demetrianus; and so it is rightly understood for what reason the synod of Antioch celebrated in the cause of Novatian, which I think with Du Bois was the reconciler of the peace of the Eastern churches, is attributed in the synodical libellus just cited to Demetrianus alone, with no mention made of Fabius. Let us now go on to other letters of our Saint.

§ X. The controversy on the rebaptizing of heretics having arisen between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen the Pope, Dionysius works for the preservation of peace in the Church, and to this end writes various letters.

[The Saint, three of whose letters besides those already mentioned are here enumerated,] Almost all the letters which our Saint wrote on the occasion of Novatian's schism or of his heretical opinion concerning the lapsed, and which we have already mentioned, are cited by Eusebius in book 6 of the History, chapter 46, as what has been said so far teaches. Furthermore, three other letters, of which we have not so far made mention, are cited besides by the same Historian in the same place. The first, which is a letter of rebuke, Dionysius wrote to his flock at Alexandria; the second, which is also called a booklet by the said Eusebius, he gave to Origen concerning martyrdom; the third, finally, concerning the office of the deacon, he sent through Hippolytus to the brethren established at Rome. The Saint's letter of rebuke to his flock was most probably written when Dionysius was in exile from the city of Alexandria in the time of persecution; but since he was driven into exile for the cause of the faith more than once, it cannot be declared for certain in the time of which exile, and accordingly about what year, it was written. Wherefore, since this also cannot be declared concerning the letter which the Saint wrote to the Roman brethren concerning the office of the deacon, I defer further treatment of both these letters to the Appendix to be subjoined to this Commentary, in which I treat both of the Works of which it cannot be declared for certain whether they are undoubtedly our Saint's, and of those which were indeed composed by Dionysius beyond all doubt, but the time about which they were composed is by no means ascertained. As regards the letter which Dionysius wrote to Origen concerning martyrdom, it was indeed written, as I shall prove in its place, while the persecution of Decius was still lasting; and accordingly it should have been mentioned by me here before. But since yet another letter was written by our Saint concerning Origen, of which the epoch is altogether unknown, and which therefore is to be deferred to the Appendix, I have preferred to defer also the other, written to Origen, whose epoch is ascertained, to the same Appendix, because I wish to set forth as though under one view all the things which come to be disputed here concerning Origen.

[99] Thus I proceed to review in order both the letters written by our Saint and the other matters concerning him under the reign of Gallus he is known to have done nothing illustrious; which can be referred to a definite time. The Church, agitated by the internal tumults of Novatian's schism, after a little respite from the Decian persecution, was again vexed with a new persecution by Gallus, who, Decius having been slain in the year 251 about the month of December, had succeeded to the empire together with Hostilianus. Dionysius teaches us this in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 1, writing thus: But neither did Gallus understand the fault of Decius: nor did he foresee what at length had ruined him. Rather he struck against the same stone placed before his eyes. For when his reign was in a prosperous state, and all things succeeded according to his wish, he persecuted the holy men who offered prayers to God for his peace and safety. Together with them, therefore, he put to flight the prayers that were wont to be made for him. From which words it becomes manifest that a persecution was set in motion by Gallus against the Christians; but from the same we are not taught in which provinces of the Roman empire chiefly it raged. Pagi, in the Critica at the year 252, number 17 and following, contends that the persecution set in motion by Gallus was only local, namely in the city of Rome alone. But whether this opinion of his rests on sufficiently firm foundations has already been discussed with us in volume IV of September, in the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, §33. To this, then, studious reader, I refer you for the sake of brevity. Meanwhile nothing occurs either in Eusebius or anywhere else from which you could certainly make out that the persecution which Gallus stirred up blazed out at Alexandria or elsewhere in Egypt; and accordingly it is very doubtful whether our Saint on the occasion of that persecution suffered anything for the Christian faith, or accomplished anything worthy of memory. I also find nothing illustriously done by our Saint which ought to be referred even to the reign of Gallus itself. In order, then, to pursue the series of matters concerning Dionysius, it is necessary that we proceed beyond it.

[100] In the year 254, as the more common opinion of the learned now holds, but when the controversy about baptism arose between Cyprian and Stephen, Valerian succeeded Gallus in the empire. At the beginning of his reign the Church enjoyed a most longed-for peace, and that so great that under none of the earlier emperors was there a greater. Our Saint again teaches us this in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 10, writing thus of Valerian in the letter to Hermammon: To John also it was similarly revealed. For he says: And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and impious; and power was given to him, and forty-two months. And one may wonder that both were fulfilled in Valerian, and consider this before all, of what sort he was before the persecution: how mild and kind he was towards the servants of God. For none of the earlier princes, not even those who are said to have been openly Christians, embraced our people with such humanity and benevolence as he displayed at the beginning of his principate; and his whole household abounded with pious men, and seemed to be a Church of God. This peace lasted, before Valerian stirred up a new persecution against the Christians, about four years. But while the Church was thus for a time immune from external tumults, it began to be most savagely agitated by internal ones. On the occasion of those who came over from heresy to the Church a most grievous tempest arose. Cyprian, with almost the whole African church, asserted that such men were to be baptized anew; Stephen, on the contrary, the Roman Pontiff, supported by ancient tradition, contended that baptism conferred by heretics was valid, and accordingly not to be repeated. Our Saint, on the occasion of this most famous controversy, wrote various letters to various persons, namely to Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, to Sixtus, his successor, and to Dionysius and Philemon, Roman presbyters: but before I set forth more concerning these, it will help to say some things here by way of preface about the time, origin and progress of the said most famous controversy, so that anyone may more conveniently understand how much Dionysius deserved of the Church while it lasted, by labouring to preserve peace between the parties.

[101] whose time here, Agrippinus, the predecessor of St. Cyprian in the chair of Carthage, though not the immediate one, about the year 200, having assembled a council of bishops, was the first in Africa to decree that the true baptism of Christ could not be conferred outside the Church, and accordingly that whoever, baptized by heretics alone, came over to the Church were to be rebaptized. About fifty years afterwards it happened that there was doubt on this matter in Africa, especially in Numidia, and for that reason eighteen bishops consulted St. Cyprian. Their letters were read in a synod of thirty, or thirty-one, bishops at Carthage, whom the holy metropolitan had either convoked for that very reason or had with him, convoked on other business. Cyprian, and the said bishops who were present with him at Carthage, judged that the decree of Agrippinus was to be adhered to, and so that whoever, dipped by heretics or schismatics, asked to be admitted into the Church were to be rebaptized, and wrote back to the aforesaid bishops to this effect. Not long after this synod it happened that St. Cyprian was consulted anew on the same matter also by Quintus, a bishop in Mauretania, through Lucian the presbyter, and he transmitted to him the same answer which had been given to the bishops cited above, adding also the synodical letter of the recent council, celebrated about the end of the year 255. Not content with having done this, in the year 256 before Easter, as Pearson holds in the Annales Cyprianici, he celebrated another council of seventy-one prelates of Africa and Numidia. In this, what had been decreed in the former synod concerning the baptism of heretics was again approved and confirmed by the unanimous vote of all. And lest anything should be lacking to the firmness of the matter, the assembled Fathers transmitted to St. Stephen at Rome a common letter, in which they had enclosed both the synodical letter of the former council and the other letter of St. Cyprian to Quintus, the bishop cited above, both on the same argument, fully confident that he would strengthen by his vote and authority what they themselves had determined concerning the rebaptizing of heretics.

[102] But in truth the matter turned out far otherwise than they had hoped. the origin For Stephen, having read their letters, deservedly indignant that the Apostolic tradition, by which those baptized by heretics, if they came to the Church, were to be received without repetition of baptism, should be proscribed as erroneous, and that by bishops conspicuous for the fame of learning and sanctity, determined that a remedy was to be applied to so great an evil, not of any kind whatever, but the most efficacious and at the same time the promptest. Presently, therefore, writing back to Cyprian and the other bishops of Africa, he replied that their opinion was contrary to the Apostolic tradition, from which it was unlawful to depart, and at the same time commanded that nothing should be innovated in a matter of such moment, threatening also the penalty of excommunication to those who would not obey, or at least pronouncing that they were to be held worthy of it. These letters struck St. Cyprian and the other bishops of the same opinion with him in a wonderful manner. They saw themselves reduced, namely, to this, that they must either abandon the opinion which they thought rested on firm reasons and was consonant with the truth, or undergo the manifest danger of being proscribed by the Chair of St. Peter. The first seemed to them hard and not necessary, because they believed that the question was not of any article of faith, but only of discipline, which is sometimes different in various particular churches; and that the custom which Stephen adduced was not divine, but only human. They therefore determined to leave nothing undone by which both their opinion

they might defend, and escape the threats of the angered Pontiff while preserving unity and communion.

[103] To this end Cyprian proclaimed a third council on this cause for the next Kalends of September of the said year 256, and the progress are set out, and convoked to it all the bishops of Africa, Numidia and Mauretania whom he could, with this design without doubt, that either, if it seemed good to the majority, he might comply with Stephen, or, if on the contrary he had almost all agreeing with him, so great a number and authority of bishops might restrain the Roman Pontiff at least from pronouncing the sentence of excommunication that had been threatened. Thus on the said Kalends of September of the year 256 the third council concerning the baptism of heretics was celebrated at Carthage, and eighty-five bishops from Africa, Numidia and Mauretania took part in it, and all these, each and every one, Cyprian exhorting that each should give his opinion on the matter proposed as freely as possible, confirmed the decrees of the earlier assemblies by their own vote and that of two absent bishops besides. From this number legates were then chosen by Cyprian and the other fathers of the synod to St. Stephen. But these again were received by the Pontiff with not the outcome they had hoped for. For since everything had already been reported to him before they arrived, and he knew accordingly that the Africans, already heard once after the second council of Carthage, had, against the most grave rescript which he had sent them and the threats of excommunication held over them, confirmed their error by an even greater number of bishops than before, he severely repulsed the said legates, although sent by a venerable synod of very many bishops, and ordered them to leave Rome with the matter wholly unaccomplished, repeating also grave threats against the Africans unless they returned to the ancient custom of the Church. The African prelates, and Cyprian especially, having understood the unhappy outcome of their cause from the legates who had returned from Rome, were without doubt not moderately disturbed, and, fearing lest Stephen, whom they found constant in his purpose, should shortly proceed to the sentence of excommunication which he had threatened, turned their minds in every direction in order to avert that thunderbolt from their heads. Cyprian knew that Firmilian of Caesarea, Helenus of Tarsus, and other bishops in the East, who tenaciously defended the same opinion on rebaptizing heretics, introduced in the synods celebrated at Iconium and Synnada about the year 230, had likewise been reproved by Stephen on that account. Hence it seemed good to him to give letters to Firmilian, by which he might inform him of the state of the African church and of the common danger, and ask what his opinion was in this matter.

[104] to Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, All these things, which I have thought fit to contract into a compendium in the three preceding numbers, the learned reader will find explained at length, and the chief heads validly proved, with us in volume 1 of August in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Stephen the Pope, and in volume 4 of September in the Commentary prefatory to the Life of St. Cyprian, already often cited; and I therefore, referring him there for brevity's sake, proceed to treat those things which our Saint did in the Controversy already explained in compendium. Our Du Bois, in the prefatory Commentary on St. Stephen just cited, suspects that Cyprian, in the letter to Firmilian, which has now perished, cited just now, also urged that if he had any friends either in the East or in Egypt whom he knew not to be suspect at Rome and to have some weight there, he should employ them as intercessors with Stephen against the misfortune impending over the Eastern churches as well as the African. So the said Du Bois, presently hinting that St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, perhaps at the request of Firmilian, interceded as an intercessor in this cause, by giving a letter to Stephen, partly inserted by Eusebius in book 7, chapter 5 of his Ecclesiastical History. And he does this for the reason that Dionysius, writing afterwards another letter to Xystus, the successor of Stephen, affirms that he had besought and asked Stephen, namely that he should not determine anything too harshly against the Eastern or other bishops who condemned the baptism of heretics. But however much our Saint, by the letter given to Stephen, besought him not to determine anything too harshly, as the said letter to Sixtus bears witness, against Firmilian and the other bishops who condemned the baptism of heretics, it can by no means be concluded from the said letter to Sixtus that Dionysius was impelled to it at the request of Firmilian. Indeed, it seems to follow from it that Dionysius was moved to act as intercessor with Stephen solely by the letters which he had received from Stephen himself concerning Firmilian, Helenus and other Eastern bishops.

[105] not, however, at the request of Firmilian, For in the said letter to Xystus Dionysius writes thus: Before, indeed, he (St. Stephen) had written letters concerning Helenus and Firmilian, and finally concerning all the priests established throughout Cilicia, Cappadocia, and all the neighbouring provinces, that he would withdraw from their communion for this cause, that they rebaptized heretics. And a few things having been interposed, he subjoins: Concerning all these I sent a letter to him (St. Stephen), asking and beseeching, namely that he should not cut off the aforesaid bishops from his communion. Dionysius therefore wrote, as is clear from this, the deprecatory letter to Stephen of which we treat here, when he had previously received letters from him, and accordingly he seems to have been impelled by these alone, from which he had understood Stephen's severe design concerning the bishops who rejected the baptism of heretics, to intercede as intercessor for the said bishops by giving a letter to Stephen. He did this, then, by no means at the request of Firmilian, induced by Cyprian to ask it. But if the Saint had in fact done it at the request of Firmilian, the letter in which he did it would then have been written not earlier than when the year 256 was advanced. For on that hypothesis it would not have been written before the letter sent by Cyprian to Firmilian about procuring intercessors with Stephen; and he would not have sent such a letter to him except after the third council of Carthage, celebrated on the Kalends of September in the year 256, so that on the said hypothesis our Saint's letter to Stephen would not have been written earlier than when the year 256 was advanced. And indeed, although in fact, as I have already shown, it most probably did not happen that Dionysius interceded for the bishops who condemned the baptism of heretics, by giving a letter to Stephen at the request of Firmilian, the letter nevertheless seems to have been written neither earlier nor later than the said year 256.

[106] For it was not written before the letter given by St. Stephen to Dionysius concerning Firmilian and Helenus he wrote in the year 256 a letter, and other bishops to be cut off from his communion. Wherefore, since this was without doubt not written before the letter by which Stephen, in the year 256, as we have already seen, forbade the African bishops to rebaptize those baptized by heretics, it appears certain that the said letter of our Saint to Stephen was not written before the year 256. Now since Cyprian, as we have shown, immediately after the third council of Carthage, celebrated on the Kalends of September, had ascertained that Firmilian had been reproved by Stephen for having defended the opinion on rebaptizing heretics, it is certain that he was reproved by Stephen not later than the said year 256, and accordingly, since our Saint most probably received shortly after this reproof made to Firmilian the letter from Stephen concerning him and others to be cut off from his communion, and did not, as appears, long defer replying to it, he most probably did this not later than the aforesaid year 256. It is therefore most probable that our Saint's said letter to Stephen was written neither later nor earlier than the year 256. As regards the argument of the letter, this is easily drawn out from what has already been said. In it, namely, Dionysius, having first announced the peace which all the Eastern churches everywhere had unexpectedly obtained, the schism of Novatian having been proscribed, very much exhorted Stephen not to cause it to be disturbed anew by cutting off from his communion Firmilian, Helenus and other bishops of the East who adhered to the opinion on rebaptizing heretics. Thus the Saint, while that perilous controversy on the baptism of heretics lasted, most diligently strove to preserve peace and unity in the Church. Nor perhaps was his attempt in vain. For, as it is right to conjecture, it was probably partly effected by it with Stephen that he, when he had hoped that the Africans as well as the Easterners would be deterred by just threats from proscribing the Apostolic custom, and yet perceived that he was achieving nothing, but on the contrary that their minds were being more and more exasperated, relaxed somewhat of his severity, and stopped within mere threats of excommunication, retaining for a while in his communion those who thought differently, lest the Church should suffer some graver detriment from their being cut off.

[107] and afterwards others to Dionysius and Philemon, Furthermore, at the same time at which Dionysius wrote the said letter concerning baptism to Stephen, he wrote two other letters besides on the same argument, one to Dionysius, then a presbyter and afterwards Roman Pontiff, the other to Philemon, likewise a presbyter. This is again gathered from our Saint himself, who, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 5, in the letter to Xystus already cited before, where he has asserted that he wrote to Stephen concerning baptism and the controversy that had arisen about it, a few things having been interposed, as Eusebius hints, writes thus: But to our dearest brethren and fellow presbyters Dionysius and Philemon also, who had before thought the same as Stephen and had written to me on the same matters, I wrote before indeed briefly, but now in more words. These two letters, of which St. Dionysius gave one to Dionysius, afterwards Pontiff, the other to Philemon, before, that is, before he wrote to Xystus, while St. Stephen was sitting as Pope, Eusebius by no means enumerates among the letters written by our Saint concerning baptism, which he defines at the number six. That they were written concerning baptism, however, is understood from the words of Dionysius just recited, in which he says that he gave letters in reply to Dionysius and Philemon, who had written to him about those matters concerning which he himself had given a letter to Stephen, to whom he had certainly written concerning baptism. Eusebius probably did not count both the said letters among the letters written by the Saint concerning baptism because they were rather brief. Certainly he counts among these two other longer letters, of which one was likewise given by our Saint concerning baptism to the same Dionysius already cited, the other to Philemon.

[108] and to Sixtus he gave between August of the year 257 and August of the year 258, These two letters, as also three others, one of which I have already cited above often, transmitted to Xystus, were written by Dionysius, as I shall presently show, when he had already been driven into exile after the persecution of Valerian had arisen. Wherefore, considering the order which I have proposed to observe in treating the deeds of Dionysius, one should treat here of the Saint's relegation and the circumstances which accompanied it before the letters just mentioned: but, lest the series of the matters begun to be treated should have to be interrupted, it seems better that I first dispatch what pertains to the aforesaid letters and to the controversy treated in them, and then undertake a treatment of the Saint's relegation and of what he endured as an exile at Cephro, a place of Libya, which therefore

I think should be done here as well. Thus St. Dionysius wrote all five letters mentioned at the beginning of this number, as I advised I would show, when already in exile after the persecution of Valerian had arisen. For among them are three given to St. Xystus, the Roman Pontiff. Wherefore, since St. Xystus, or, as he is written by others, Sixtus, was raised to the Pontificate (see with us concerning this holy Pontiff volume 2 of August, page 132 and following) in the year 257, about the XXIVth of August, it is necessary that those three letters were not written before August or September or even October of this year. Now since in the same year before August, as is now sufficiently agreed among all the learned, the persecution of Valerian first arose, and at its beginning our Saint, as I shall show below, was relegated into Libya by Aemilianus, the Augustal prefect, it does not seem to be doubted that our Saint wrote those three letters, just cited again, when already driven into exile. As regards now the two remaining ones of the five mentioned at the beginning of this number, our Saint indicates in the words just recited that he wrote these at the same time at which he gave his first letter concerning baptism to Xystus. Wherefore, since he wrote this when already driven into exile, there is no doubt that he likewise wrote the two others, about the time of whose writing the question is here, when already driven into exile. Hence now, learned reader, and from the year 258, in whose month of August (see the volume of our Work cited in this present number, page 129) St. Sixtus was crowned with martyrdom, you will rightly gather that all five letters of our Saint already mentioned were written between about the twenty-fourth day of August of the year 257 and August of the year 258.

[109] Furthermore, to discuss a few things more concerning these letters, concerning which and concerning others some things are observed here. Eusebius, in book 7, chapters 5 and 6, exhibits two Fragments of the first letter written to Xystus, which he calls our Saint's second letter concerning baptism, by reason of the letter to Stephen written earlier on the same argument; from one of which we learn that the Sabellian heresy had already arisen in Egypt at the time when Dionysius was writing that letter to Xystus. There will be a place for speaking of it afterwards. I carry forward the discourse begun concerning the said letters. As regards the two latter letters written by Dionysius to Xystus, Eusebius records both in book 7, chapter 9, and of one indeed he also exhibits a Fragment, which will be of use here afterwards; but not likewise of the other: this, nevertheless, he enumerates among the letters written by Dionysius concerning baptism: for, having recited the Fragment which I have just cited, he subjoins: Besides those mentioned above there is also another (not a fifth, as Valois renders) letter of the same (St. Dionysius) concerning baptism, directed in his own name and that of the church which he governed to Xystus and the Church of the city of Rome, in which he undertakes a very long disputation on the question proposed (on rebaptizing heretics). From which words it is clear that Eusebius counts the said letter among those which were written by Dionysius concerning baptism, and accordingly, since before it he had already enumerated five others written concerning baptism, namely one to Stephen, two to Sixtus, one to Dionysius and another to Philemon, that writer numbers not five only, as has seemed to some, but six letters written by Dionysius concerning baptism; and if you add to these the two shorter letters to Dionysius and Philemon, mentioned at number 107, you will have eight letters composed by Dionysius concerning baptism: of some of these, not of all, Eusebius hands down Fragments. Would that he had at least transcribed entire the longer letter to Philemon, in which, as Eusebius himself testifies in book 7, chapter 7, he treated abundantly the question of rebaptizing heretics! So perhaps it could have been defined more certainly whether Dionysius agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian and other bishops on rebaptizing heretics. This some now deny, others affirm. With whom the greater likelihood stands the following § will teach.

§ XI. Whether Dionysius certainly agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian on rebaptizing heretics.

[Jerome asserts that Dionysius agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian concerning baptism;] St. Jerome, in the Catalogue of the Illustrious Writers of the Church, chapter 69, writes thus of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria: He, agreeing with the doctrine of Cyprian and of the African synod, sent very many letters to various persons concerning rebaptizing heretics, which are extant to this day. By which words Jerome certainly teaches clearly that Dionysius agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian on rebaptizing heretics. I do not know whether Jerome had in hand any letters not mentioned by Eusebius, or entire ones of which the latter recites only Fragments, from which he held the agreement of Dionysius with the doctrine of Cyprian as undoubted. However that may be, it certainly seems that this cannot be proved from the Fragments of the letters which Jerome cites in the said chapter, commended to posterity by Eusebius. Indeed, since from these the contrary seems rather to be concluded, it appears more probable that letters did not light the way for Jerome from which he held the agreement of Dionysius with the doctrine of Cyprian as altogether ascertained and undoubted. Nor on that account, however, is this Saint to be said to have strayed from the truth. For, as I shall set out below, it can be understood of the agreement of Dionysius with the doctrine of Cyprian taken less generally. And in order that each one may now see clearly that from the aforesaid Fragments it is rather to be concluded that St. Dionysius did not agree with the doctrine of Cyprian than that he agreed, it will help to transcribe them here at least in part, and to discuss accurately what can be drawn from each either for denying or for building up St. Dionysius's agreement with the doctrine of Cyprian. I begin with the letter given to Stephen.

[111] but this, from the Saint's letters in Eusebius, In the Fragment of this letter, already cited more than once before, which is extant in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 5, St. Dionysius only narrates that all the churches of the East everywhere, the heresy of Novatian having been overthrown, rejoice in the highest peace and concord among themselves; but he adds no mention of repeating or not repeating baptism in heretics coming to the Church, so that it is not even worth the trouble to transfer any words from there to here. I therefore proceed to others. In the Fragment of his first letter to Xystus, which Eusebius also exhibits in the chapter just cited, he says indeed that it was decreed in the greatest councils of bishops that those who, baptized by heretics alone, come to the Church should be rebaptized, and he repeats this very thing in the Fragment of the letter to Philemon, which Eusebius brought into his Ecclesiastical History in book 7, chapter 7; but he nowhere expressly requires that this be admitted by all and in fact put into execution. Let us now transcribe the Saint's own words which chiefly pertain to our purpose. In the former place he has these: And see, I pray, the gravity of the business. For in truth in the greatest councils of bishops, as I hear, it was decreed that those who come from the heretics to the Catholic Church should first be made catechumens, and then be purged of the filth of the old and impure leaven by baptism. In the latter, these: I have learned besides that this custom (of rebaptizing heretics coming to the Church) was not now first introduced by the Africans alone, but that long before, in the times of earlier bishops, the same was sanctioned both in most populous churches and in the councils of the brethren at Iconium and Synnada, and among very many others.

[112] So Dionysius in the two places cited, presently also subjoining these to the words last recited: their Fragments, is not proved; Whose (the bishops', who in councils had determined that heretics were to be rebaptized) opinions and statutes I for my part would not wish to overturn, and to rouse them to quarrels and contentions. For it is written: Thou shalt not remove the landmarks of thy neighbour, which thy fathers have set. By which the Saint certainly by no means indicates that the decree on rebaptizing heretics, which he had affirmed to have been framed by various synods, was to be admitted by all churches, and that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid, but seems only to mean that each should be permitted freely to follow the usage of his church, and that it was accordingly lawful to rebaptize heretics where the custom had prevailed that it should be done. That Dionysius agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian on rebaptizing heretics is therefore not proved from the words which we have brought from the Fragments of the Saint's two letters to Sixtus and Philemon, just cited. Nor do other things occur in the same Fragments from which you could in any way hammer out this very thing. For in the Fragment of the said letter to Sixtus no words are found besides those already adduced which can be referred here. As regards the other Fragment of the letter to Philemon, this further exhibits Dionysius speaking thus: This rule and form I received from our most blessed Pope Heraclas. For those who came from the heretics, even though they had fallen away, or rather had not indeed fallen away, but, communicating in appearance with the brethren, had been reported to hear secretly the masters of perverse doctrine, having been cast out of the Church, he did not admit, after many prayers at length, before they had openly set out whatever they had heard from the adversaries. And then at last he admitted them to communion, by no means thinking that they needed a repeated baptism. For they had already before received the Holy Spirit from him.

[113] But so far are you from proving from these words that St. Dionysius, or rather Heraclas, his predecessor, indeed, from the letter to Sixtus, in whose footsteps the Saint was treading, agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian, that rather the opposite would have to be concluded from them, if the recited words treated of those coming to the Church who had been baptized by heretics alone; but these speak solely of those who, baptized in the Catholic Church, were returning anew to the same, from which they had afterwards fallen away. And that such were not to be rebaptized was undoubted, so that from the text produced nothing is had by which anyone could show St. Dionysius either assenting to or opposing Cyprian. But I now show more clearly that Dionysius held as valid the baptism conferred by heretics, and accordingly rather opposed Cyprian than assented to him. The Saint wished, as I have already shown, that each should be permitted freely to follow the usage of his church; wherefore, since it follows from this that he also wished it to be lawful for the churches in which the custom of not rebaptizing heretics had prevailed to follow this freely, there can be no doubt that he held the baptism of heretics as valid. For if he had held it as invalid, how, I ask, could he have approved the custom of not rebaptizing heretics? And if you reply that Dionysius nowhere expressly asserts that each church is to be left in its custom of rebaptizing or not rebaptizing, I show further that this was the Saint's opinion from his second letter to Sixtus, which Eusebius calls the fifth concerning baptism. Dionysius in this letter, of which Eusebius exhibits a Fragment in book 7, chapter 9, relates that he had been long asked by a certain old man, who had once come over from heresy to the Church,

to baptize him anew. But he affirms that he did not dare to baptize him afresh.

[114] a Fragment of which is transcribed here, I transcribe the Saint's own words: Truly, he says to Sixtus, I have need of your counsel, brother, and I seek your opinion, lest perhaps I myself be mistaken, such a business having been brought to me. One of the brethren who assemble at the Church, long held as one of the faithful, and who before my ordination and, unless I am mistaken, before the episcopate of Heraclas himself too, had been a partaker of the assembly of the faithful; having been present at the baptism of those who were lately being baptized, and having heard their interrogations and answers, came to me weeping and bewailing his lot, and, casting himself at my feet, began to confess and swear that the baptism with which he had been initiated among the heretics was not of this kind, nor had anything in common with this of ours. For it was full of blasphemy and impiety; and he said that his mind was pierced with the most bitter feeling of sorrow, and that he did not dare even to raise his eyes to God; since he had been initiated with those wicked words and ceremonies. Accordingly he begged that he might be granted this most pure laver, and the truest adoption and grace. This indeed I did not dare to do; but I said that his long communion was sufficient for that. For one who has frequently heard the thanksgiving, and has answered Amen with the rest; who has stood at the sacred table, and has stretched out his hands to receive the sacred food; who has received it, and has been a partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for a very long time, him I would not dare to renew from the beginning. Furthermore I bade him be of good courage, and approach the participation of the Lord's Body with firm faith, full of good hope. But he makes no end of mourning, and utterly shudders to approach the table, and when asked scarcely brings himself to be present at the prayers.

[115] the contrary seems Since therefore, as is clear from the text already transcribed, the aforesaid old man, who had been baptized by heretics alone, was received into the Church even before the times of Heraclas without repetition of baptism, it appears certain that men of this kind were not to be baptized again according to the custom of the Alexandrian church; and our Saint kept and approved this when he denied new baptism to that old man. But, you will say, Dionysius did this only because he doubted whether the aforesaid old man was to be rebaptized; not because he thought that the baptism with which he had been dipped by heretics was valid. I confess, Dionysius seems to have doubted concerning the validity of the baptism with which the old man had been washed; for otherwise, as appears, he would not have consulted St. Sixtus the Pontiff by letter on this matter: but what then? Suppose he denied baptism to the old man for this reason alone; even from this it will follow that baptism conferred by heretics in the due manner was held as valid by our Saint. For since he doubted whether the baptism of the said old man, which had had plainly no likeness to the baptism of the Catholics (see the words just recited), was to be held as valid, it does not seem to be doubted that he held as valid a baptism which had been conferred by heretics in the due manner. Nevertheless, although this is certainly most probable, it does not appear to me altogether certain. For the Saint in the text already brought forward has these words: I said that his (the old man's) long communion was sufficient for that (the sacred laver). For one who has frequently heard the thanksgiving, … who has stood at the sacred table, and has stretched out his hands to receive the sacred food; who has received it, and has been a partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for a very long time, him I would not dare to renew from the beginning: and from these words it can perhaps not ineptly be contended that Dionysius doubted concerning the validity of the baptism of which we treat here, not because he thought that the old man had perhaps been validly baptized by the heretics; but because he had ascertained that he had frequently approached the most sacred banquet of the Eucharist, and perhaps doubted whether frequent approach to the divine Table did not supply the defect of baptism.

[116] Now if for no other reason the validity of the baptism with which the aforesaid old man had been washed to be concluded. was doubtful to our Saint, it cannot be certain from this that he held as valid the baptism which had been conferred by heretics alone, the due manner being observed. However that may be, that it was nevertheless held as valid by Dionysius deserves, as I have already hinted, to be held most probable. And I certainly think this most probable for the reason that, since by the ancient custom of the Alexandrian church, as I have already shown, those baptized by heretics alone, if they came to the Church, were not to be rebaptized, in that church baptism conferred by heretics alone was without doubt held as valid; and I should think it unlike the truth that our Saint departed from this opinion of his church. But, you will say, if Dionysius held as valid the baptism conferred by heretics alone, how did he wish it to be permitted to Cyprian and other bishops to initiate with a new baptism those baptized by heretics, if they came to the Church? I answer that he could have wished this for the reason that, although he himself most probably judged the baptism of heretics to be valid, he nevertheless did not count this opinion among the articles of faith, and thought that the custom of not rebaptizing heretics, which St. Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, alleged, had been introduced not by the will of God but of men, so that it was accordingly better to bear the departure of some from it than that the peace of the Church should be disturbed.

[117] And indeed reasons were not lacking why our Saint should think that heretics, For what reason heretics could be rebaptized, whose baptism he held as valid, could be rebaptized. For, as he himself says in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 5, in the letter to Sixtus, in the greatest … councils of bishops it had been decreed that those who came from the heretics to the Catholic Church should first be made catechumens, and then be purged of the filth of the old and impure leaven by baptism; by the Councils of which the Saint here speaks he most probably understands no others than those of Iconium and Synnada, both celebrated about the year 230; for these he expresses by name in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 7, in the letter to Philemon, writing thus in words already recited: I have learned that this custom (of rebaptizing those baptized by heretics) was not now first introduced by the Africans alone, but that long before, in the times of earlier bishops, the same was sanctioned both in most populous churches and in the councils of the brethren at Iconium and Synnada, and among very many others. Pearson, in the Annales Cyprianici at the year 256, number 6, brings forward two canons, written originally in the Greek idiom, which are numbered 45 and 46 among the canons usually circulated under the name of the Apostolic canons: of these the former, in the version of Dionysius Exiguus, runs thus: We command that a bishop or presbyter who receives the baptism of heretics be condemned. For what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what part has the faithful with the unbeliever? And the second is expressed in this manner: A bishop or presbyter, if he baptizes afresh one who truly has baptism, or if he does not baptize one who has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed. And having recited these in Greek and Latin, the said Pearson presently subjoins: These things concerning the baptism of heretics were without doubt decreed in the Asiatic churches before the council of Iconium.

[118] Dionysius thought, But this does not seem to me as undoubted as to Pearson. For if the two canons recited had been framed before the council of Iconium, which, as I have said, was celebrated about the year 230, in more ancient Asiatic councils, as Pearson will have it, our Saint would certainly have cited these by name in the said letter to Philemon for proving the antiquity of the custom of rebaptizing those baptized by heretics, rather than the councils which had been celebrated at Iconium and Synnada only about twenty years before. Nor is there ground for anyone to say that Dionysius in the aforesaid letter asserts that in the councils of the brethren at Iconium and Synnada, and among very many others, or rather, as the Greek has it, many, the same was sanctioned, that is, that those baptized by heretics were to be rebaptized, and accordingly that Dionysius appeals, at least in general, even to more ancient councils: for the Saint presently subjoins in the same place: Whose opinions and statutes I for my part would not wish to overturn, and to rouse them to quarrels and contentions. By which words, since they are without doubt referred to those immediately preceding, our Saint indicates that he does not wish to rouse to quarrels and contentions those many others among whom he had previously said that the rebaptism of heretics had been sanctioned. Dionysius, then, by the many others among whom he affirms in the words recited above that the rebaptism of those baptized by heretics alone had been sanctioned, understands not the fathers of more ancient councils, but either bishops living in his own age, or more recent Christian assemblies: for he could not rouse to quarrels and contentions, which the Saint anxiously wished to avoid, by overturning their opinions and statutes, the fathers of more ancient councils, since they were already dead. Thus Dionysius affirms that the rebaptism of heretics was established only in councils not much removed from his own time, or even celebrated in his own age.

[119] [and how Jerome's assertion concerning his agreement with Cyprian's doctrine can be understood.] Furthermore, although according to what has already been said we judge it most probable that baptism conferred by heretics was held as valid by Dionysius, this opinion of ours is nevertheless not so opposed to St. Jerome, who affirms that Dionysius agreed with the doctrine of Cyprian and of the synod of Carthage on rebaptizing heretics, that it can in no way at all be brought into concord with this assertion of that holy doctor. For St. Cyprian, together with the council of Carthage, affirmed two things: the one was that baptism could not be conferred outside the Church, and accordingly that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid; the other, which followed from the former, that whoever, baptized by heretics alone, came from heresy to the Church were to be rebaptized. Dionysius, however, thought the first of these indeed to be false, and accordingly that baptism conferred by heretics was valid; yet since at the same time he thought that this opinion of his was neither altogether certain nor pertained to faith, he wished that it should be permitted to any bishop freely, according to the custom of the church over which he presided, to rebaptize or not rebaptize heretics coming from heresy to the Church, and thus he contended that the rebaptism of heretics was lawful. Now since Cyprian contended that heretics ought to be rebaptized, and accordingly could be, Jerome could assert that Dionysius agreed with Cyprian's doctrine on rebaptizing heretics, not because he taught that the baptism of heretics was invalid, but because he held that those who had been baptized by heretics alone could be rebaptized. Thus I think Jerome is to be interpreted, not only on account of the reasons by which I have already proved that Dionysius most probably held as valid baptism conferred by heretics, but also from this, that St. Basil, in the letter to Amphilochius, chapter 1, indicates that the baptism of the Montanists, or Pepuzenes, was also held as valid by Dionysius, which nevertheless was afterwards by the second ecumenical council

in canon 7 was rejected, and was most certainly invalid.

§ XII. Valerian stirs up a persecution against the Christians; in what year it began, and what Dionysius endured in it.

The persecution against the Christians by Valerian, The controversy about baptism which had arisen chiefly between Cyprian and Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, not yet being finished, a new persecution against the Christians blazed out, and that a very unexpected one, stirred up by the emperor Valerian. He had been, as I showed at number 100 by the words of our Saint in the letter to Hermammon in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 10, at the beginning of his principate so kind towards the Christians that in that respect he yielded the palm neither to all the best emperors, nor even to those very ones, namely the two Philips and Alexander Severus, who had been held to be Christians, although perhaps falsely. But, says our Saint in Eusebius in the place just cited, the master and archisynagogue of the magicians of Egypt at length persuaded him to fall away from this course; bidding him persecute and kill chaste and holy men, since they opposed and obstructed his wicked and detestable incantations. Baronius, at the years of Christ 252 and 258, thinks from these words that the author who impelled Valerian to stir up a persecution against the Christians was an Egyptian magician, and that indeed the very one who, before the persecution of Decius had arisen, roused the people of Alexandria against the Christians. But just as he who was the author of the persecution stirred up by the people at Alexandria before the reign of Decius was most certainly not, as I have shown above, of the number of the Egyptian magicians, so likewise he who impelled Valerian to stir up a persecution against the Christians was neither a magician nor master or president of the Egyptian magicians.

[121] So Tillemont, Pearson, Pagi and all the learned now think, at the instigation of Macrianus, who, however, of the magicians and not undeservedly, when they explain the words of our Saint just recited. That master, says Pagi in the Critica at the year 257, number 3, is said (by St. Dionysius of Alexandria) to have been neither a magician nor an Egyptian, but archisynagogue of the magicians from Egypt, that is, their greatest patron, since he made use of them frequently and familiarly, and protected them by his authority, which was very great with the emperor. And he was no other than that most notorious Macrianus, pointed out by that name by Dionysius himself immediately after; who, having been told by the magicians that he would one day be emperor, and being thereafter desirous of revolution, repaid them this favour, that he rendered Valerian hostile to the Christians, who most opposed their evil arts. Pearson, from whom Pagi drew his material, sets out these same things in almost as many words, making Macrianus the author of the persecution. And in order that it may be plain before all that he was also truly the author of the persecution stirred up by Valerian, I transcribe here other words of Dionysius from which this becomes manifest. After the words recited in the preceding number, a few things having been interposed, he subjoins these: Καλὰ γοῦν ἀυτοῖς Μακριανὸς τῆς ἐλπιζομένης βασιλείας προσήνεγκε χαριστήρια; that is, excellent indeed was the thanks and splendid the gifts that Macrianus offered them for the hoped-for empire; by which words, referred to what precedes, he hints that the one whom he before called master and archisynagogue of the magicians, and also the instigator of Valerian against the Christians, is none other than Macrianus. But receive other words of Dionysius which also pertain to this. A few things again having been interposed after those just recited, he subjoins: Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ὀυαλερίανὸς εἰς ταῦτα ὑπὸ τούτου προσαχθεὶς εἰς ὕβρεις καὶ ὀνειδισμοὺς ἐκδοθεὶς, that is, as I interpret word for word, For Valerian, impelled to these things (to persecuting the Christians and afflicting them with torments) by him (Macrianus, namely, whom he had named a little before), was exposed to insults and reproaches, namely when he was afterwards captured by the Persians. It is clear, then, from Dionysius, the context of his discourse being considered, that the author of the persecution stirred up by Valerian is none other than Macrianus, pointed out by the Saint by this very name.

[122] was not the president, but only the patron, And indeed, says Pagi in the place cited, after Pearson, Dionysius not only expressly named the man (Macrianus); but also played on that name (of Macrianus, namely). For when he had said in jest that he had once been Κατολικὸν, namely rationalis (procurator) of the treasury, and yet had thought nothing rational or Catholic, he continues in the same kind of writing: But he made himself alien and banished from the mercy of God, and put himself to flight as far as possible from his own salvation, in this expressing the truth of his name; which namely he meant to be derived ἀπὸ τοῦ μακρὰν, that is, far. Go, studious reader, to the chapter of Eusebius cited at number 120, and you will perceive more evidently how Dionysius plays there on the name of Macrianus. But, you will say, since from what has been said Macrianus was the author of the persecution stirred up by Valerian, and he is called by Dionysius archisynagogue of the magicians, it follows that Macrianus was archisynagogue of the magicians. But it does not appear likely that Macrianus was a magician or archisynagogue of the magicians. For, as the said Pearson teaches, and as is established from the writers of the Augustan History, Macrianus was a man of the highest rank in the Roman state; no one at that time was held wiser among the generals, no one fitter for conducting affairs; his valour had been proved as a boy in Italy, as a youth in Gaul, as a young man in Thrace, and in Africa when already advanced in years. Moreover, by the testimony of Trebellius Pollio, he was Valerian's helper in governing the state. Who would think a man of this kind was president of the Egyptian magicians? I confess, this appears little credible; and hence it is that I also do not believe what Valois asserts in the Annotations to the said chapter of Eusebius, that Macrianus was the chief of the magicians whom Valerian led about in his army. But I think that Macrianus is distinguished by Dionysius with the name of archisynagogue of the magicians not because he in fact held the presidency of the magicians, but because, since he cherished them with his patronage and held them greatly in his affections, he could in a way be counted among them, and that in no lowest place, since by his patronage he brought it about that the magicians indulged their illicit arts more licentiously, and accordingly he seemed in a way to preside over their wicked acts. See the words recited from Pagi at number 121. From the author of the persecution I proceed to its epoch.

[123] Baronius attaches the beginning of the persecution set in motion by Valerian to the year 256; stirred up in the year 257, but in this matter the most learned father of Ecclesiastical History is contradicted by all the learned now, as far as I know, who refer the said beginning to the year 257. And indeed it appears certain that the persecution of Valerian did not arise before the aforesaid year 257. For, as is admitted by all, the persecution of Valerian most certainly took its beginning in one or the other of the two years already mentioned; but this, as appears certain, did not happen in the year 256. I show the matter thus: St. Cyprian (see with us the Commentary prefatory to his Life, §46), in the very year in which Valerian first set in motion the persecution against the Christians, on the thirtieth day of August appeared before the tribunal of the African proconsul, and having professed the faith, was then driven into exile. Now Cyprian (see the Commentary just cited again, §40) on the Kalends of September in the year 256 celebrated the third council of Carthage, of eighty-five bishops, concerning baptism. Wherefore, since Cyprian beyond doubt did not celebrate that council on the Kalends of September, or the first of September, in the very year in which only two days before, that is on the thirtieth day of August, he had been driven into exile, it follows that in the year 256, on whose Kalends of September, as I have already said, the third council of Carthage concerning baptism was celebrated, the persecution of Valerian did not arise. It did not, then, take its beginning before the year 257. But, you will say, St. Dionysius in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 10, in the letter to Hermammon, writes thus of Valerian: To John also it was similarly revealed. For he says: And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and impious; and power was given to him, and forty-two months: and Dionysius, as writers generally judge, understands by those forty-two months the time during which Valerian, before he was captured by the Persians, persecuted the Church. Now since forty-two months, computed from the year 257, lead to the year 260, it will follow that Valerian was captured by the Persians in this year, which is not admitted by many. I answer: absolutely no inconvenience arises from Valerian's captivity being fixed to the year 260, whatever others meanwhile may think; which I shall prove more fully below against Pagi. Let us now see what befell our Saint in the persecution of Valerian.

[124] When Valerian's edict against the Christians had been brought to Alexandria, at once Dionysius, Valerian's edict having been brought to Alexandria, Dionysius was at once summoned by Aemilianus, the Augustal prefect, presented himself at his tribunal, and, having professed the faith, was relegated to Cephro, a desert place of Libya. That the Saint was relegated there under Valerian becomes manifest from the Fragment of his own letter against Germanus in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI, already often cited above, and presently to be recited entire; and that this happened as soon as Valerian's edict against the Christians was brought to Alexandria I prove thus: it was then the established custom that, when persecution was threatening or had just first arisen, the bishops at once convoked the people committed to their care, and animated them to retain the faith of Christ and unbroken fortitude of mind in the impending calamities. Moreover they washed infants and catechumens with the saving and life-giving water, lest they should depart from this life without baptism, and distributed to the faithful, since it was not known how long the persecution would last, the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. In order, then, that the bishops might discharge all these things, it was necessary that they should celebrate at least some assemblies; but our Saint, when Valerian's edict had been brought to Alexandria, was driven into exile by Aemilianus so hastily that he was not free to celebrate the assemblies customary at the beginnings of persecutions. This is clear from the letter against Germanus, just cited again. For Dionysius was traduced by Germanus, who accused him on many grounds, on this score also, that when persecution had arisen or was already threatening he had not held assemblies of the brethren, but had consulted his own safety by flight. And the Saint, in order to repel this calumny from himself, first sets forth in the aforesaid letter, from the public Acts, how he confessed the faith before Aemilianus, and how he was driven by him into exile, however sick, without the delay of even one day being granted, and then subjoins: How then was I free thereafter to hold or not to hold assemblies? By which words the Saint certainly hints that, when the persecution of Valerian had arisen, he could not celebrate the assemblies otherwise usually celebrated, as I have advised, at the beginnings of persecutions: for since he narrates a little afterwards that, when already placed in exile, he held frequent assemblies of the faithful, his discourse is not of assemblies which he could not celebrate when already in exile.

[125] about the month of September he is relegated into Libya Furthermore, since Valerian's edict against the Christians (see again the Commentary on the Life of St. Cyprian

prefatory, §46) was brought to Carthage in the year 257 before the month of September, I think that the aforesaid edict was likewise brought to Alexandria at about the same time (for the passage from the City towards both those cities was of nearly equal length), and accordingly that Dionysius was relegated into Libya by Aemilianus already from the month of September. But, the year and month in which the Saint was sent into exile being defined in this manner, let us unfold more minutely the series of the whole affair from his own letter against Germanus. Dionysius, compelled in it to run out into his own praises in order to defend his reputation against Germanus, first excuses his deed thus: I fear indeed lest I seem to have fallen into madness and stupor, while I am compelled to relate the admirable providence and dispensation of God towards us. But since, as the Scripture says, it is praiseworthy to hide the secret of a king, but glorious to proclaim the works of God, I will contend hand to hand against the onset of Germanus. The Saint, having so prefaced these things, presently sets out with how great praise he confessed the faith before Aemilianus.

[126] by Aemilianus the prefect, before whom he had previously made a glorious I came, he says, to Aemilianus not alone, but accompanied by Maximus my fellow presbyter, and Faustus, Eusebius and Chaeremon, deacons. One also of the Roman brethren who were then present went in with us. Furthermore Aemilianus did not say to me at the outset: Do not hold assemblies. For that was superfluous to him and the last thing, as he hastened to what is first and chief. For he did not care at all lest I should gather others: but he was working at this, that we ourselves should not be Christians. And he ordered me to desist from that worship, thinking, namely, that if I had fallen away from that worship, the rest would follow my example. I answered not improbably, and with an answer not fetched from afar: We ought to obey God rather than men. But I openly and plainly testified that I adore Him who alone is God, and no other besides Him; and that I would not depart from my purpose, nor ever commit it that I should cease to be a Christian. After these things he ordered us to go away to a certain village near the desert, whose name is Cephro. Thus Dionysius sets out his confession before Aemilianus and the relegation that followed: and since he makes mention neither of prison nor of soldiers sent to bring him to the Augustal prefect, it appears most probable to me that the Saint, the day having been appointed him, appeared freely, without an escort of soldiers and without previous imprisonment, before the tribunal of Aemilianus, and there confessed the faith, as his words just recited teach, in order to give credit to which he also has recourse to the very public Acts (for the words which confessors uttered before judges were usually taken down in writing by public notaries).

[127] But, he says, receive the very words which were spoken by each of us (by Aemilianus and me), confession of the faith, which is transcribed here. as they are read inserted in the public Acts. Here now St. Dionysius transcribes from the public Acts the words which serve to confirm his confession and the relegation he had previously narrated. Here, then, they are also: Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus and Chaeremon having been brought in, Aemilianus the prefect said: I have discoursed with you not only in writing but also by living voice concerning the humanity of our princes, which they use towards you. For they have given you the power of retaining your safety, provided you were willing to be borne towards that which is consonant with nature, and to adore the Gods, the guardians of their empire, and to forget those things which are repugnant to nature itself. What then do you say to these things? For I hope that you will not be of ungrateful mind towards their clemency; since they are trying to bring you over to better things. Dionysius answered: Not all gods are worshipped by all: but each worships those whom he thinks gods. We indeed worship and adore the one God, the maker of all things, who has delivered the empire to Valerian and Gallienus, the most sacred Augusti. To Him we offer continual prayers for their empire, that it may remain stable and unshaken. Aemilianus the prefect again said: But who prevents you from adoring Him too, if indeed He is God, together with those who are gods by nature? For you have been ordered to worship gods, and those whom all know as gods. Dionysius answered: We adore no other. Aemilianus the prefect said: I see that you are at once ungrateful and stupid, who do not at all perceive the clemency of the Augusti. Wherefore you shall not remain in this city, but shall be sent into the parts of Libya, to a place which is called Cephro. For this place I have chosen by order of our Augusti. And it shall in no way be permitted either to you or to any others whatsoever to hold assemblies, or to go to those places which are called cemeteries. And if anyone shall be caught not having set out to the place which I have ordered, or shall be found in any assembly, he shall bring danger upon himself. For fitting punishment will not be lacking. Depart, then, whither you have been ordered.

[128] These are the words which, as Dionysius himself testifies from the public Acts, were uttered back and forth between him and Aemilianus. Ado, on the contrary, as you will understand from numbers 22 and 23 of this Commentary, affirms that Dionysius, before the judge, In it he did not utter words injurious to the emperors. namely Aemilianus, used these words, which differ much from those already recited: Why do you labour in hunting? Take my head, for which you are greatly wearying yourselves, torn from my neck, and carry it as a great gift to your tyrant and emperor. But besides the fact that it is plainly unknown whence these words were taken by Ado, they seem by no means to agree with Dionysius's veneration towards the emperors. For when he speaks of them (see the words just recited), he not only affirms that he prays for them continually, but also does not hesitate to call them θεοφιλεστάτους, that is, most beloved of God, or most sacred; and although, as Baronius rightly observes, Dionysius does not call the sacrilegious emperors Most Holy in the sense in which the word Holy is now taken, nor indeed could he have called them so, he nevertheless shows his veneration towards them by this honourable appellation, which was then counted among the customary titles of the emperors, and accordingly it is not likely that he used the words just brought from Ado, which show not veneration but the utmost contempt of the emperors. Furthermore, in the public Acts already transcribed, from which Dionysius proves his confession, not all things are contained which the Saint reveals, in the words recited at number 126, that he said to Aemilianus. For in them he says among other things: I openly and plainly testified that I adore Him who alone is God, and no other besides Him; and that I would not depart from my purpose, nor ever commit it that I should cease to be a Christian. But these do not occur among the words uttered by Dionysius before Aemilianus in the public Acts transcribed above. I answer that the Saint, in the narration of his confession, does not employ the very words which he uttered before Aemilianus, and which he afterwards transcribes from the public Acts, but only narrates the substance of the affair. Moreover, he transcribed from the public Acts not all, but perhaps only the chief words which he uttered before Aemilianus. Certainly it cannot be doubted that Faustus, Marcellus and the others who confessed Christ with Dionysius before Aemilianus uttered some words before Aemilianus, and yet the Saint transcribed none of these from the public Acts. But let what has been said concerning the confession of Dionysius suffice. Let us now consider what followed his relegation.

[129] He announces the faith at Cephro, the place of his exile in Libya, After the words recited at number 124, by which he hints that, when the persecution of Valerian had arisen, he could not celebrate the assemblies usually celebrated at the beginnings of persecutions, a few things having been interposed, as Eusebius says, he continues thus in the letter against Germanus: But neither were we absent, the Lord helping, from the bodily assembly. But those who were in the city I gathered into the church with greater zeal, absent indeed in body, as I have already said; but present in spirit. And at Cephro a great multitude of the faithful was with us; partly of those who had followed us from the city; partly of others who flocked together from the rest of Egypt. There also God opened to us a door for the preaching of His word. And at first indeed we suffered persecution and were assailed with stones. But afterwards not a few of the gentiles, having left their images, were converted to God. For then first were the seeds of the divine word sown among them by us, since they had not received it before. And altogether as though God had led us to them for that purpose; after we had fulfilled that ministry, He transferred us again elsewhere.

[130] For Aemilianus determined to transport us to certain harsher places and, as he believed, from which he is afterwards ordered by Aemilianus to move into the Mareotis; more Libyan ones. And having ordered all from every quarter to flock together to the Mareotic prefecture, he assigned to each villages scattered through that region: but us he placed rather towards the public road, so that we might be the first to be seized. For he was chiefly working and striving at this, that whenever he wished we might all be taken without any trouble. But I, when I was first ordered to go away to Cephro, although I did not know where that place was situated, since I had scarcely even heard its name before, nevertheless set out with an eager and constant mind. But after it was announced to me that I should move to the region of Colluthion, those know who were then present how I was affected in mind. For here I will accuse myself. At first indeed I bore it very hardly and with annoyance. For although that region was better known and more familiar to us than Cephro, yet the place was said to be empty of brethren and upright men, and exposed to crowds of travellers and to incursions of robbers. But the brethren brought me much consolation when they reminded me that that place was nearer to the city. And so, although Cephro had brought us a very great multitude of brethren flocking together from Egypt, so that we could now hold assemblies more freely: there, however, on account of the nearness of the city, they said we should more frequently enjoy the sight of our dearest and most closely joined friends. For they would come, and stay there, and there would be particular assemblies there as though in the more remote suburbs; and so it came about.

[131] Thus far Dionysius, recording only a single change of his exile, made under Valerian, but from here, while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting, again and yet not openly indicating that he was then compelled to change the place of his exile only once. Hence it came about that Rufinus could be persuaded that Dionysius changed the place of his exile more than once under Valerian, and, referring to the persecution of Valerian the letter written by the Saint to Domitius and Didymus, of which we have made mention very often above, in book 7, chapter X of Eusebius as interpolated by him, after the words in which he narrates that Dionysius was an exile first in Libya and then, his exile having been changed, in a place near Alexandria, immediately subjoined:

But since there too, on account of the nearness of the city (Alexandria), the people of our faith (the Christians) frequented him (St. Dionysius, or the place near Alexandria in which he was living), and, as though their shepherd had been recovered, the flock was rendered more joyful and more constant in its contests, again soldiers were sent with a centurion, and they dragged Dionysius himself, and with him Gaius and Peter, bound in chains and afflicted with various tortures, into a certain desert of Libya, and there left them tied in bonds in a most squalid place, lacking every use of humanity, stretched into the desert three days' journey from Paraetonium. Ado, as we have already hinted at number 23, wrongly transferred these same things into his Martyrology. For Rufinus, whom he followed as guide, judged that second change of our Saint's exile, built up in the words just recited, to have been made, partly from the fact that, as I also advised in the same place, he took our Saint's letter to Germanus in a foreign sense, and partly from the fact that he referred Dionysius's letter to Domitius and Didymus to the persecution of Valerian. But that this latter is not treated in it I have already shown sufficiently and more than enough in §6 of this Commentary against Pagi and others. And as regards the letter written by Dionysius against Germanus, and taken by Rufinus in a foreign sense, it certainly nowhere indicates that Dionysius was compelled to change the place of his exile more than once; indeed, since it supplies nothing at all from which it would be right to suspect that the Saint was ordered to withdraw a second time from the place near Alexandria into Libya, it is taken in a foreign sense by Rufinus when it is combined with the letter written to Domitius and Didymus, and from both taken together one and the same series of events is fused.

[132] to have been ordered to return into Libya, is not proved. But, you will say, Dionysius, after the words recited at number 129 and following from his letter written against Germanus, a few things having been interposed, continues thus: But perhaps Germanus boasts of many confessions of faith, and can proclaim many things done against himself. But how many can he enumerate, as I can, sentences of judges, publications, proscriptions, plunderings of goods, deprivations of dignities, contempts of worldly glory, scornings of the praises that came from prefects and decurions, and finally the enduring of threats that were held over us face to face, of outcries, of dangers, of persecutions, of flight, of hardships, and of evils of every kind; such as are those which befell us under Decius and Sabinus, and which up to this day have befallen us under Aemilianus. By which last words Dionysius hints that the evils which he was suffering still lasted at the time when he was writing against Germanus, and accordingly that the persecution set in motion by Valerian had not yet been calmed. So it plainly is: but what then? He may, you will say, have had to change the place of his exile once more while the persecution of Valerian lasted. Let it be so: does it therefore follow that Dionysius was in fact compelled under Valerian to change the place of his exile a second time and to withdraw into Libya? Or, even this being admitted, is it therefore necessary that the letter written against Germanus, together with the letter given to Domitius and Didymus, comprehend one and the same series of narration? Or did Rufinus, thinking this, stray less from the truth? Certainly, since according to what was said and proved before, Dionysius's letter to Domitius and Didymus is to be referred to the reign of Decius, it cannot contain, with the Saint's letter against Germanus, the entire series of what Dionysius suffered under Valerian long after Decius. And here now you have the foreign sense in which I said that the letter which is marked with the name of Domitius and Didymus was taken by Rufinus, when he reports that Dionysius changed the place of his exile twice under Valerian.

§ XIII. Dionysius defends his reputation, and takes care of his flock, even when absent.

Dionysius, by a letter not earlier than the year 258, St. Dionysius, as I have already sufficiently hinted above, wrote the letter, which I partly transcribed in the preceding §, against Germanus while the persecution of Valerian was still raging, and accordingly there is no doubt that he did it between the year 256 and the year 261. For from what has already been said the persecution of Valerian did not take its beginning before the year 257, and from what is to be said it did not reach its end before the year 260, and accordingly it is necessary that the aforesaid letter was written between the years just mentioned. But it appears most probable to me that it was written not earlier than the year 258 nor later than the year 259. The first I show thus: Dionysius, in the year 257, about the month of September, as we have shown before, was relegated to Cephro, a place of Libya, distant three days' journey from Paraetonium, the sea-port of Marmarica; and he stayed there so long that, having at first indeed suffered persecution and been assailed with stones, he afterwards converted not a few of the gentiles inhabiting the place to the true faith of Christ, and only then was ordered to move from there into the Mareotis. Now since from this it becomes most probable that Dionysius remained in Libya at least four months before he moved from there into the Mareotis, and these lead from September of the year 257 to the year 258, it appears certain that the Saint did not move from Libya into the Mareotis before the aforesaid year 258. Wherefore, since Dionysius mentions this move in the letter against Germanus of which we treat here, it does not seem to be doubted that it was written not earlier than the aforementioned year 258.

[134] As regards now the second, namely that it was written not later nor later than the year 259, written, than the year 259, this becomes most probable from the very circumstances of the persecution set in motion by Valerian. For the persecution, as I have already shown, was stirred up by Valerian against the Christians in the year 257, and lasted up to the year 260, when about half of it, as I shall show below, had elapsed, in which Valerian undertook a warlike expedition against the Persians; now since, being intent on preparing this expedition, he most probably pressed the persecution of the Christians less for half a year also, it is most probable that the writing of our Saint's letter against Germanus is to be placed before the aforesaid year 260, since in it Dionysius indicates that even at the time when he was writing the persecution of Valerian was seething greatly. Our Saint's letter against Germanus was therefore most probably, as I asserted, written not later than the year 259. And in order that I may also distinguish more accurately the place in which it was written by Dionysius: the Saint, when he wrote it, was in the Mareotis, as it is right to gather from what has already been said; and the Mareotis, by the testimony of Athanasius in the Apology against the Arians, belonged to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and was a tract of no small size, in which various villages are enumerated by historians and geographers alike, and among them one by the name of Colluthion, which fell to Dionysius as his place of residence when he returned from Libya. Dionysius, then, when he was writing the said letter, was in some tract of his own patriarchate.

[135] The time and place at which the Saint did this having been determined in this manner, defended his reputation against Germanus, I set out more distinctly the cause and occasion of this writing, already insinuated in passing more than once before. Although Dionysius fulfilled all the parts of a vigorous pastor, he was not immune from the malignity of calumny. He was compelled to defend his reputation, which he also excellently accomplished by the letter already very often cited, against Germanus, a certain Egyptian bishop. For he attacked the Saint with calumnies. Eusebius teaches us this in book 7 of the History, chapter XI, prefacing the Fragment of the letter written against Germanus which he transcribes with these words: What and how great things he himself (St. Dionysius) together with others endured for the worship of the true God is taught by the words of the same Dionysius, in which he answers a certain Germanus, a bishop of that time, who was trying to calumniate him, in a letter, namely, written against that bishop. Neither Eusebius nor any other writer has left it handed down to memory what or of what kind were the calumnies with which Germanus tore the name of Dionysius. Yet, as far as it is right to attain by conjecture, he accused Dionysius of cowardice and neglect of duty, asserting that he had taken greater care of himself than of his flock, and had taken to flight too hastily in order to avoid persecution, without even previously celebrating assemblies of the faithful committed to his care, in which, according to the duty of the episcopal office and the custom then received, he ought, when persecution had first arisen or was threatening, to have animated them to unbroken constancy in the faith and to the enduring of hardships.

[136] refuting the charge made against him of neglecting his flock, which also However that may be, I conjecture that these were certainly the chief heads of the calumnies with which Germanus tore Dionysius, from the very aim which the Saint seems to have set before himself solely in the letter written against Germanus. For in it Dionysius is wholly bent on showing that, when persecution had arisen, he did not take to flight before he had been ordered by God to flee, and that then, as far as time permitted him, he always celebrated assemblies of the faithful. To this end he also exhibits in compendium whatever he either did or suffered for the name of Christ in the times of persecution. And how vigorously, how aptly the Saint turns all these things against the calumnies cast upon him, the Fragments of his own letter against Germanus, already transcribed here by us above, will teach, so that it is not necessary to discourse more here on the solidity and weight of the reasons by which Dionysius tried to defend his reputation, unjustly torn. And indeed the Saint's deeds alone sufficiently refute the calumnies cast upon him by Germanus. Germanus, as I said, traduced Dionysius on the score that he had taken greater care of himself than of the flock committed to him. But the Saint most clearly proved by deeds, even at the time when he was still in exile, how undeservedly he had been accused of neglect of his duty by Germanus.

[137] [he vigorously cared for, writing various letters while the persecution was still lasting,] For since, being absent from Alexandria, he could not in person nourish the Christian people dwelling there with the food of the divine word, rouse them to mutual charity, and animate them to the pursuit of the other virtues, he strove to effect this very thing by letters. Of some letters written by Dionysius while placed in exile, as the persecution of Valerian raged, Eusebius in book 7, chapter 20, records thus: Besides the letters mentioned above, the same Dionysius at that time wrote those Paschal letters which we have: weaving into them encomia and panegyrical discourses on the Paschal feast. One of these he addressed to Flavius; another to Domitius and Didymus. In which, proving that the feast-day of Pascha ought not to be celebrated except after the vernal equinox, he published a canon of eight years. He also wrote another letter to the fellow presbyters of the church of Alexandria, and likewise other letters to various persons, and these while the fury of the persecution was still raging. By which words he indicates that not only those other letters given to various persons and mentioned last, but absolutely all of which he makes mention, were written while the persecution of Valerian was still raging. As regards the letters mentioned in the last place and in an indefinite number, the very words of Eusebius just recited make this manifest. Nor is there reason why anyone should perhaps contend that by them is to be understood the persecution which Macrianus, a most hostile enemy of the Christians, having seized the tyranny after the captivity of Valerian, exercised in Egypt. For in the words just recited

Eusebius treats of no other persecution than that concerning which he framed his discourse in the chapters immediately preceding the chapter just cited; and he frames his discourse of none but the persecution alone stirred up by Valerian. Let us come now to the three other letters, of which Dionysius wrote, as the words of Eusebius presently to be transcribed here give credit, one to Domitius and Didymus, another to Flavius, and the third finally to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church. All these likewise pertain to the persecution of Valerian. For in the place just cited Eusebius indicates that all of them were written at the very time at which he had asserted that the letters which he had mentioned above, and certainly immediately above, were written. Now the letters which Eusebius had mentioned immediately before chapter 20, cited above, are no other than the letter written against Germanus, and those which Dionysius gave to Sixtus and to some others concerning baptism. Wherefore, since all these, as is clear from what has been disputed above, pertain to the persecution of Valerian, that is, were written while it was still lasting, there is no doubt that the three said letters, about the time of whose writing the question is here, were likewise written at that time.

[138] But, you will say, in what year then were these written? of which one, given to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church, They were, as has already been said, written at the very time at which the letter to Sixtus and the other against Germanus were. Wherefore, since these, as has likewise already been said, were written in the year 258 or 259, it follows that those were likewise written in one or the other year. Let the same judgment be passed on the letters which the words produced from Eusebius in the preceding number do not express in a definite number. As regards their argument, the first two (see the words recited in the preceding number) are Paschal, whose argument, what or of what kind it was, I have already shown above, and shall show afterwards at greater length. The third, which is inscribed by Dionysius to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church, bears no indication at all of a definite argument. Tillemont thinks it is perhaps the same as that which Jerome, in chapter 69 on the illustrious Writers of the Church, affirms that Dionysius wrote to the Alexandrian church concerning his exile. Tillemont's opinion is not wholly destitute of probability; yet since Eusebius in book 6, chapter 46, mentions another letter written by Dionysius to his Alexandrian flock, it may be that Jerome understands this one by the letter which he affirms Dionysius wrote to the Alexandrian church concerning his exile. Hence I would not dare to determine for certain whether Jerome wishes to assign this one rather than that one by the letter which he affirms was written by Dionysius to the Alexandrian church concerning his exile. But if you contend that the letter mentioned by Eusebius, as I have said, in book 6, chapter 46, since it is a letter of rebuke and not written concerning exile, cannot be understood by Jerome by the letter which he affirms was written by Dionysius to the Alexandrian church concerning his exile, and accordingly that by this is designated the letter which Dionysius gave to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church; if, I say, you contend this, I answer that it may be that the letter which Jerome records was written by Dionysius concerning his exile is altogether different, not only from Dionysius's letter of rebuke to the Alexandrian flock, but also from that which he gave to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church, and which, as I have already shown, Eusebius records in book 7, chapter 20. For this likewise does not seem to have been written concerning exile, or concerning the state in which the Saint was living as an exile; certainly it bears no indication from which you could gather whether it was written on that argument.

[139] And indeed I do not see why it could not have been written on a far different argument. he perhaps commended to them the care of his flock; St. Cyprian, as will become evident to anyone who inspects his works, when driven into exile from Carthage, exhorted the presbyters and deacons of Carthage by several letters that they should take upon themselves and diligently lay hold of the care of the Carthaginian flock, which he, being absent, could not exercise. Dionysius, then, may have written the letter which we are discussing here to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church for a similar reason. Certainly that he, no less than Cyprian, committed to his clergy the care of his flock, which as an exile he could not himself exercise, is rendered most probable by the altogether singular and truly pastoral solicitude, proved by works, with which he shone. Dionysius, in the letter given to Domitius and Didymus, which we have proved above to have been written in the time of the Decian persecution, records these things: In the city (of Alexandria) there hid themselves, in order to visit the brethren secretly, certain presbyters, Maximus, Dioscorus, Demetrius and Lucius; for Faustinus and Aquila, being placed in greater public view, are wandering through Egypt: and of the deacons, those surviving after the ones who were consumed by disease, Faustus, Eusebius, Chaeremon: Eusebius, I say, whom God from the very beginning strengthened and impelled to render his ministries vigorously to the confessors placed in custody, and to bury the corpses of the consummated and blessed martyrs not without danger to his own head. The presbyters and deacons who are said by St. Dionysius to have hidden themselves here in the city of Alexandria in the time of the Decian persecution, in order to visit the brethren, or Christians, secretly, did this without doubt, as is admitted by all, by the Saint's order, so that the Saint then proved his pastoral solicitude not obscurely. Hence it becomes most probable that he watched over the salvation of his flock with like solicitude in the same way while the persecution of Valerian raged, so that by the letter which he gave to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church he perhaps exhorted them to watch diligently over the Alexandrian flock, of which he himself, being absent, could not take care.

[140] by others, two of which were concerning Pascha, And these are the things which occur to be said concerning the argument of the letter which Dionysius, while in exile, gave to the fellow presbyters of the Alexandrian church. I proceed now to the two other letters mentioned above, of which one was addressed to Flavius, the other to Domitius and Didymus. The latter, as I have already shown in §6 of this Commentary, is without doubt different from the letter which the Saint wrote to the same Domitius and Didymus when placed in a certain desert and squalid place of Libya. Its argument, to be treated, as I have already advised, more fully below, is made known from the very name of Paschal letter with which it is honoured by Eusebius. Let the same judgment be passed on the argument of the letter addressed to Flavius. And indeed in this, as Eusebius expressly notes, Dionysius shows that Pascha is not to be celebrated before the vernal equinox. Flavius, to whom it is inscribed, is beyond all doubt distinct from Flavius, or, as others write, Fabius, bishop of Antioch, cited very often above. For Fabius, or Flavius, bishop of Antioch, departed from the living, as we have shown, in the year 252, and accordingly he must be different from the Flavius to whom the letter just cited was inscribed by Dionysius, since, from what has been said, this was not written before the year 258 or 259. Furthermore, both the Paschal letters of which we treat here are also a proof of how accurately Dionysius, even while in exile, fulfilled all the parts of the best and most vigilant pastor. For by giving the aforesaid letters, after a brief discourse on the Paschal festivity, the Saint taught at what time the fast was to be begun and when Pascha was to be celebrated. See what I have taught concerning the Paschal letters at number 58, to which I now also add more here, as I promised I would do. Dionysius's Paschal letters were written in an elegant and florid style, such as is usually employed in panegyrical orations and declamations; and by them the Saint probably also spurred to virtue those to whom they were sent in every direction. Paschal letters, says Valois in the Notes to chapter 20 of book 7 of Eusebius, were usually sent every year by the patriarchs of Alexandria to absolutely all the churches of Egypt, so that they might agree among themselves in the celebration of the Paschal feast. Whether, however, this custom obtained in the age of Dionysius Tillemont doubts, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, on Dionysius, article 13, for the reason that the Saint's Paschal letters are found inscribed not to entire churches but to particular persons. But it can be answered that the particular persons to whom Dionysius inscribed his Paschal letters were rectors or curators of churches, and that it was incumbent on them either to read the aforesaid letters to the people or at least to have them read, so that those letters, although they bear the names only of particular persons, were nevertheless destined for entire churches. Moreover, Eusebius in book 7, chapter 22, records two Paschal letters written by Dionysius to the brethren established throughout Egypt, so that not all the Saint's Paschal letters were inscribed to particular persons. The said Tillemont adds that those letters were written a very short time before Pascha. But he does not prove that that time was so short that they could not be carried to all the churches of Egypt at a suitable time before Pascha and Lent.

[141] However that may be, Dionysius, by writing those letters, and others the rest, written on another argument, perhaps spurred to virtue. which Eusebius, in book 7 of the History, chapter 20, already cited more than once, indicates that he wrote to various persons while still in exile, excellently proves, as I have already said, the pastoral solicitude of the Saint. For it does not seem to be doubted that all were written either for the utility of the Church or for procuring the salvation of souls and for kindling the pursuit of virtues in the souls of the Christians committed to the Saint's care, although meanwhile of what argument each of those which Eusebius does not express in a definite number was cannot be declared for certain. For the rest, whoever desires confirmation of what has been said above concerning the Paschal letters which the patriarchs of Alexandria were accustomed to write every year, let him go to the sermons of St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, on the Paschal feast, which are circulated under the name of Paschal Homilies. St. Cyril himself distinguishes these sometimes by the name of Letters, sometimes by that of Sermons. Thirty of these survive so far. Sometimes he signifies that he transmits those sermons to various churches, sometimes also that he pronounces them before a huge multitude of people. But he could have sent them to the more remote churches and pronounced them at Alexandria. In absolutely all of them he weaves a sufficiently long discourse on the Paschal feast, and then at the end announces the beginning of Lent and the day of Pascha. But let it suffice to have noted these things concerning the Paschal letters; I proceed now to other matters which wonderfully exercised Dionysius's pastoral solicitude for the good of the Church, and which gave occasion for traducing the holy Man as though he thought wrongly concerning the most holy Trinity.

§ XIV. He opposes himself to the heresy of the Sabellians; he is accused of unsound doctrine before Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, and is informed by him by letter of the matter of which he is accused.

The Saint, when the Sabellian heresy had arisen in the Pentapolis, While the persecution of Valerian was still lasting, indeed when it had first arisen, or perhaps even a little before it arose, a new heresy likewise arose. In Libya, called Cyrenaica, there is a tract which is called by the Greeks Pentapolis on account of the five cities which it comprises. One of these, Ptolemais,

is distinguished by name. In this city the heresy of the Sabellians began to disturb the peace of the Church, attacking the distinction of persons in the most holy Trinity, and proclaiming in it, as one substance only, so likewise one person. Sabellius, who is asserted by Zonaras alone to have been bishop of the said Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, widely disseminated this heresy, although he does not seem to have been its first author, and drew over to his party many persons, even of the first note, so that, chiefly by his agency, that impious heresy against the most holy Trinity had everywhere in the aforesaid tract of Libya its followers, strong not in number only but also in authority. There were, however, also some who, adhering to the footsteps of their fathers, preserved the purity of the faith, and opposing themselves to Sabellius, refused to receive his execrable doctrine. Matters being so constituted, disputations could not but arise between the parties, and this also, as was likely to happen, in fact occurred. But since by disputing neither could the Sabellians be recalled from their heresy, nor were those who opposed themselves to the Sabellians willing to abandon the genuine doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity, and hence these could by no means be reconciled with those, both the Sabellians and the defenders of sound doctrine thought that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, as metropolitan of the Pentapolitan tract, should be consulted. Thus the followers of both parties sent to the Saint not only letters but also messengers to discuss with him. Dionysius, having heard the whole matter from the beginning and accurately discussed it, wrote various letters to the Pentapolitans, by which he refuted the heresy of Sabellius as far as, God helping, could be done, and transmitted copies of all of them to Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff.

[143] he informs Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff, of the matter, All these things, at least as to the chief heads, St. Dionysius himself teaches us in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 6, in the first letter to Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff, already often cited above, writing thus of the Sabellian heresy when it first arose: Concerning that doctrine which has lately been stirred up at the city of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, full of impiety and blasphemy against the almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; full also of unbelief towards His only-begotten Son, the firstborn of every creature, the Word, who dwelt among men; full, finally, of stupor towards the Holy Spirit; since from both parties letters had been brought to me, and brethren had come to discuss with me, I wrote some letters at greater length, after the manner of a treatise-writer, as far as, God helping, I could; copies of which I have sent to you. This letter of Dionysius to Sixtus, as I have proved above, was written either in the year 257 or certainly in the year 258, and accordingly, since in it the Saint indicates that the Sabellian heresy had lately arisen at the time when he was writing it, it does not seem to be doubted that it took its rise either in the year 257 or perhaps a little before. It therefore arose, as I asserted in the preceding number, either together with the persecution of Valerian or even a little before it, and was afterwards widely disseminated.

[144] But Dionysius omitted absolutely nothing which pertained to his office he celebrated a council against it, and before this other by which he might most quickly crush it as it sprouted and afterwards crept more widely. To this end he also convoked a council at Alexandria, and in it condemned Sabellius. So it is read in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, page 831. Here are the words from the synodical libellus, transferred by Labbe into the said volume: A divine and holy particular synod, gathered at Alexandria by the confessor Dionysius, archbishop of the same, which cast out Sabellius, the enemy of the divinity. Although it is not altogether established concerning the credit of the synodical Libellus from which Labbe transcribed these things, the matter asserted in it nevertheless appears most probable, and most probably, as will become evident from what is to be said below, it did not happen before the year 262; but before this the Saint, as the Sabellian heresy advanced further, wrote other letters again and again to repress the onset of impiety, and when afterwards the poison of the Sabellian heresy had infected not only the people but also some bishops of Libya, having been informed of the matter, and seeing that he had so far achieved nothing by the letters he had written, he sent there some men to induce those who had fallen into error to change their opinion. But nothing was effected by the Saint in this way either, and the said bishops disseminated the impious doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity with greater impudence than had been done before. The Saint was therefore compelled again to contend by another letter, in which he might rebuke their impudence. This letter, which ardent zeal for protecting piety in a manner extorted from him, was addressed to Ammon and Euphranor.

[145] All these things St. Athanasius teaches us in his remedies he applied, writing also to Ammon and Euphranor treatise, which he inscribed On the opinion of St. Dionysius, recording these things: In the Pentapolis of upper Libya certain of the bishops at that time thought with Sabellius, and had so prevailed with their fabrications that the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached in the Church. Dionysius, informed of the matter, on whom the care of those churches was incumbent, sends, and persuades the authors of the matter to desist from their depraved opinions. And when they did not at all desist, but rather persevered more impudently in their impiety, he was driven by necessity to restrain their impudence by this letter of his (written to Ammon and Euphranor, as Athanasius often repeats in the course of the treatise), and to set out from the Gospels the human things of the Saviour; so that, since they more audaciously denied the Son and ascribed His human things to the Father, by showing that not the Father but the Son was made man for us, he might persuade those unskilled men that the Father is not the Son, and in this way lead men gradually to believing the true Deity of the Son and to the knowledge of the Father. This is the argument of the letter, this was the cause for the Man of writing such things, namely on the occasion of those who wished so impudently to change the true faith. The letter of which Athanasius speaks here was given by Dionysius, as I have already said, to Ammon, or, as Athanasius writes, Ammonius, and Euphranor. This Athanasius often repeats in his said treatise, as I have already noted. Eusebius, in book 7, chapter 26, enumerates a letter written by Dionysius against Sabellius to Ammon and Euporus. Moreover in the said place he also cites a letter given to Euphranor and Ammon; but he indicates that one letter was written by the Saint to the latter and another likewise to the former. He calls Ammon bishop of Berenice, which is a city of the Pentapolis. I very much doubt whether it is not one and the same person who is once called Euporus and once Euphranor by Eusebius, but constantly Euphranor by Athanasius.

[146] not, however, before the year 258 or 259, writing a letter. And if this is so, I prefer the reading of Athanasius, who, since he repeats the same, as I said above, very often, and always keeps the same manner of writing, ought to be convicted of error less than Eusebius, who, since he mentions only once the letter written by Dionysius to Ammon and Euporus, can more easily have been corrupted by the error or carelessness of copyists. Furthermore, that Dionysius wrote still more letters against Sabellius than those already mentioned is understood from Eusebius, book 7, chapter 26, speaking thus of the letters written by Dionysius: Besides these there are extant very many other letters of Dionysius. Among which are those written against Sabellius to Ammon, bishop of Berenice. Another likewise to Telesphorus, and another to Euphranor. Another again to Ammon and Euporus. He also composed four books on the same argument, which he dedicated to his namesake (not fellow-tribesman, as Valois renders) Dionysius, bishop of the Romans. But, you will say, when did Dionysius compose the letters and Works here enumerated by Eusebius? The letter to Euporus, or rather Euphranor, and Ammonius, since it was not written by the Saint before the Sabellian heresy had been established and propagated, was most probably not written before the year 258 or even 259. As regards the four books which Dionysius, by the testimony of Eusebius, composed against Sabellius, these, since they were inscribed to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, who was not raised to the Pontificate before July of the year 259, were most certainly not composed before the said year, when July was already advanced. For the rest, I bring forward nothing here to determine more closely the epoch of the said Works. I only advise that both these and all the others which Dionysius wrote on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy were composed not later than about the year 262. The matter will be elucidated more fully below.

[147] On the occasion of which the Saint, whose manner of acting Let us now see what befell the Saint on the occasion of the letter given to Euphranor and Ammonius. Since the Sabellians, confusing the Son with the Father, attributed to the Father what pertained to the human nature of the Son, Dionysius in his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius was busied almost solely with this, to demonstrate clearly that what befitted the Son as man could not be attributed to the Father. He wished in this way to lead the Sabellians to recognize the distinction between the Father and the Son, and afterwards to imbue them with a new knowledge of the divinity. This is clear from the words of Athanasius just recited. And Dionysius did this, as will become evident from what is to be said, with the best counsel. So, says Athanasius in the said Treatise, the blessed Apostles, with very prudent counsel, first recounted to the Jews the human things of the Saviour, so that, having plainly persuaded them from the miracles performed and seen that Christ had already come, they might lead them thence to believing His divinity, by demonstrating that the works which had been performed were not of a man but of God. Certainly Peter, when he had said that Christ was a man capable of suffering, at once subjoins: He is the Author of life. And he himself confesses in the Gospel: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And in his epistle he says that He is the Bishop of souls, and his Lord, and also of the angels and powers. Paul likewise, who says that Christ is a man of the seed of David, has these words in the epistle to the Hebrews: Who, being the brightness of glory and the figure of His substance. And to the Philippians: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Furthermore, what else do these, Author of life, Son of God, brightness, figure, equal to God, Lord, Bishop of souls, mean, than that the Word of God, by whom all things were made, was in the body, and that it is undivided from the Father, as brightness from light?

[148] Thus Athanasius, setting out the reason why the Apostles preached to the Jews the humanity of Christ before His divinity; against the Sabellians is approved by Athanasius, and he does this in order to show that the manner of acting which Dionysius held against the Sabellian heresy is not to be disapproved. The very same, he presently subjoins to the words just recited, Dionysius did, taught by the Apostles; for when the heresy of Sabellius had already crept in, he was compelled, as I have said, to write a letter of this kind, and to set before them the words which were said of the Saviour in a lowly and human manner, in order through the human things to deter them from saying that the Son is the Father, and so to build for them an easier way to the doctrine of the divinity of the Son; where in subsequent letters he, from the sacred Scriptures,

called Him the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, the Vapour and the Splendour of the Father. And so in the letters written in his own defence he speaks openly of the faith, and professes piety towards Christ. As, therefore, the Apostles are not to be accused on account of the words uttered concerning the humanity of the Lord (for the Lord was made Man), but rather are worthy of admiration on account of their prudent dispensation and teaching accommodated to the time; so Dionysius is not to be held an Arian on account of the letter written to Euphranor and Ammonius against Sabellius, in which, namely, he asserted that the Son is a thing made, and not the same with the Father, but different from Him as regards substance, as the vine-dresser from the vine, and the builder of a ship is different, as regards substance, from the ship; that He was not before He was made, and many similar things, which, although they would by no means have been to be approved if he had wished to put forth a bare profession of his faith, nevertheless, the end which he intended and the sense in which he uttered them being considered, were not to be carped at, as Athanasius not undeservedly contends in the words already transcribed, and as will become plain from what is to be said below.

[149] There were nevertheless in the Pentapolitan tract some he is accused before Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, who of this matter very orthodox men who took in the worse sense the formulas of speaking about the second Person of the most holy Trinity which Dionysius had employed. These, without even asking the Saint for an explanation of the things he had written rather harshly in the letter to Euphranor and Ammonius, went to Rome, and there before Pope Dionysius, who had succeeded St. Sixtus in the Pontificate in the year 259, accused him of perverse doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity, as one who asserted that the Son of God was a creature and not consubstantial with the Father. The Council which was then being celebrated at Rome, gathered either for that very cause or for another reason, took the matter ill, and the Pontiff, in the name of all the bishops, wrote to Dionysius, informing him of the sentence pronounced by the Roman synod and of the matter of which he was accused, and condemning no less those who asserted that the Son of God was a creature and not consubstantial with the Father than those who followed Sabellius and his opinion concerning the most holy Trinity. St. Athanasius teaches us all these things, partly in the book on the synods, partly in the treatise on the opinion of Dionysius; in the former place recording these things: Long before those seventy who deposed the Samosatene there were two Dionysii, of whom one was bishop at Rome, the other at Alexandria. And when certain men had denounced the Alexandrian to the Roman bishop, for affirming that the Son was a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father, a synod gathered at Rome took the matter ill: and the Roman bishop wrote back the opinion of all to his namesake (not fellow-tribesman, as the Benedictines render). And in the latter place these: When Dionysius (of Alexandria), the bishop, after he had learned those things about the Pentapolitans, had written a letter, as I have already said, against the heresy of Sabellius to Ammonius and Euphranor, moved by zeal for religion; certain brethren of the Church, men indeed of sound doctrine, yet without inquiring of him for what reason he had so written, went to Rome, and accused him before his namesake Dionysius, the Roman bishop. Having heard them, he (Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff) wrote at the same time both against the followers of Sabellius and against those who were of the opinion for uttering which Arius was afterwards cast out from the Church; saying that the impiety of Sabellius was equal, though diametrically opposed, to the blasphemy of those who say that the Word of God is a creature, a workmanship, and a thing made. He also sent letters to Dionysius (of Alexandria) to indicate on what matter he had been accused by them (the Pentapolitans).

[150] contrary to which the version of Athanasius made by Nannius, So Athanasius from the version of the Benedictines of the year 1698, which edition, published by the Parisian press, I always understand here unless I indicate otherwise: but Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 263, number 36, first indeed, probably from Nannius, exhibits nearly the same words already recited, by which Dionysius of Alexandria is related by Athanasius to have been accused by the Pentapolitans before his namesake Dionysius, the Roman bishop; but in place of the following words, which have also already been recited, and which indicate that Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, having heard the accusation of the Pentapolitans against the Alexandrian, wrote against the Sabellians and informed the Alexandrian of the matter of which he was accused, he has these: The matter having been ascertained, the Alexandrian composed a volume at once against the followers of Sabellius and the doctrines of Arius, on account of which he was cast out from the Church; where he teaches that the heresies are equal, but nevertheless contrary, in the doctrines of Sabellius and the blasphemies of those who say that the Word of God is a work or creature: and he requested of the Roman prelate that he would indicate the things objected against him. Noël Alexandre, in volume 3 of the Historico-critical Dissertations, and others, transcribed these same things, probably also from Nannius. Thus according to these, when Dionysius of Alexandria had been accused before the Pontiff, not Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, as the said version of the Benedictines indicates, but Dionysius of Alexandria himself wrote against the Sabellians, nor was he informed by Dionysius of Rome of the matter of which he was accused by the Pentapolitans, but requested by letters of him that he might be informed of what matter he was accused by the Pentapolitans.

[151] It can now be asked here whether one must stand by Nannius and his followers, or by the version of the Benedictines. here rejected by us, teaches wrongly, I think it undoubted that one must stand by the latter. For the Greek text in the heads here in controversy agrees perfectly with the said version, and has no different reading among the said Benedictines. In order that the matter may become clearer, I transcribe here the text itself with a Latin version which I myself have made: Κᾀκεῖνος ἀκούσας, ἔγραψεν ὁμου κατἀτε τῶν τὰ Σαβελλίου δοξαζόντων, καὶ κατὰ τῶν φρονούντων ταῦτα, ἅπερ καὶ Αρείος λέγων ἐξεβλήθη της ἐκκλησίας· ἴσην καὶ κατὰ διάμετρον ἀσέβειαν εἶναι λέγων, τὴντε Σαβελλίου, καὶ τὴν τῶν λεγόντων κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα καὶ γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον. Ἐπέστειλε δέ καὶ Διονυσίῳ δηλῶσαι, περὶ ὧν εἰρήκασι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Having heard them, he (Dionysius of Rome, certainly, as is clear from the context) wrote at the same time both against the followers of Sabellius and against those who were of the opinion for uttering which Arius was cast out from the Church; asserting that the impiety of Sabellius was equal, though diametrically opposed, to that of those who say that the Word of God is a creature, a workmanship and a thing made. He also sent letters to Dionysius (of Alexandria, certainly) to indicate on what matters he had been accused by them (the Pentapolitans). No one, as far as I think, considering the context of the Greek words which we have transcribed here, will think that the interpretation which Baronius and others adopted above from Petrus Nannius or from some other interpreter of St. Athanasius, whether older or more recent, can be adapted to those things which are placed at the beginning of the text. Indeed these words which are placed towards the end, Ἐπέστειλε δὲ καὶ Διονυσίῳ δηλῶσαι, περὶ ὧν εἰρήκασι κατ᾽ ἀυτοῦ, even considered barely by themselves, most certainly cannot, as ought to be manifest to everyone not altogether a stranger in the Greek tongue, be rendered by these: And he requested of the Roman prelate that they would indicate the things objected against him.

[152] Hence it appears to me most wonderful that Nannius interpreted them so; he informed Dionysius of Alexandria by letter, for I do not think that any Greek copy of Athanasius lit the way for this interpreter in which the Greek text fittingly corresponded to the Latin words of the aforesaid Nannius just recited. For not even in the Commelin edition of the Works of Athanasius does the Greek text, being word for word like that produced above, in any way agree with those words, although in it the passage of Athanasius which we are discussing here is set out in Latin in the said words of Nannius. Moreover, the Benedictines cited above assign absolutely no variant reading, as I have already advised, to the Greek text transcribed at the preceding number, which without doubt does not fit Nannius's interpretation, so that it is most probable that absolutely no Greek copy of Athanasius lit the way for Nannius in which the Greek text fittingly corresponded to his words, cited more than once already. Nannius, then, was mistaken here, or perhaps some other older interpreter of St. Athanasius from whom he drew his interpretation. Hence it now comes about that, since from what has already been disputed the said version of the Benedictines and our own are genuine, it becomes undoubted that Dionysius of Rome, and not of Alexandria, having heard the accusation of the Pentapolitans against the latter, wrote against the heresy of the Sabellians, and at the same time against the opinion of those who said that the Word of God was a creature and a thing made, and sent letters to Dionysius of Alexandria by which he informed him of what he was accused.

[153] Moreover, that Dionysius of Rome, and not of Alexandria, having heard the accusation of the Pentapolitans against the latter, wrote against Sabellius and those who had asserted that the Word of God was a creature and a thing made, [and published a Writing both against the Sabellians and against those who asserted the Son of God] undoubtedly, is also confirmed from the still surviving Fragment of the Writing which Dionysius of Rome published against Sabellius. This is exhibited inserted by Athanasius in the letter on the decrees of the Nicene synod, in the said Benedictines, number 26. I transcribe the words chiefly bearing on this, together with a brief discourse of Athanasius preceding them. And that the Word of God, says Athanasius, is neither made nor created, but the proper and indivisible offspring of the substance of the Father, as the great synod wrote, behold, Dionysius too, bishop of Rome, writing against the Sabellians, is indignant in these words against those who dare to say such things. Now, he says (Dionysius of Rome, namely), it would be fair to dispute against those who divide, cut asunder and destroy the most august preaching of the Church of God, the monarchy, into three certain powers and separate hypostases and three divinities. For I have heard that some of those who preach and teach the divine word among you are teachers of this opinion, who indeed are diametrically, so to speak, opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. For his impiety consists in this, that he says that the Son is the Father, and conversely: but they in a manner preach three Gods, when they divide the holy Unity into three different Hypostases altogether separated from one another. So, in Athanasius in the place cited, Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, presently also, a few things having been interposed, subjoining these words, by which he more openly refutes those who assert that the Word of God is a creature and a thing made:

Not less also are those to be blamed who think that the Son is a work, and hold that the Lord was made, as though forsooth He were one of those things which were truly made, whereas the divine Scripture testifies that He was begotten, as befits and agrees with Him, not formed and made. It is therefore not a light but the greatest impiety to say that the Lord was in any way made by hand.

[154] to be a thing made. Thus far Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, convicting the impiety of those who asserted that the Word of God was a creature or a thing made no less than that of the followers of Sabellius, so that hence it is confirmed that Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, and not his namesake, the bishop of Alexandria, is designated by the Dionysius who, as St. Athanasius relates in the words transcribed here at number 150, having heard the accusation of the Pentapolitans against the Alexandrian, said in a published writing that the impiety of Sabellius was equal to that of those who would have the Word of God to be a thing made. Gather from this now that the writing

in which Dionysius of Rome asserted that the impiety of Sabellius and that of those who would have the Word of God to be a thing made were equal is not different from the Writing which we have already partly transcribed here from Athanasius in the preceding number. But it may be doubted, and in fact, as I see, Tillemont doubted in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 279, whether this is also distinct from the letter which Dionysius of Rome, as Athanasius likewise gives credit in the words just cited, transmitted to Dionysius of Alexandria, in order to inform him both of the sentence pronounced by the Roman synod and of what matter he was accused of by the Pentapolitans. But this does not seem doubtful to me. For I think this letter is without doubt different from the aforesaid writing. The matter, as far as I think, will become plain to everyone from the very words of Athanasius transcribed here at number 149, so that I do not think one should dwell on proving it, and accordingly, setting other things aside, I pursue the series begun of the matters which befell on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy and which concern our Saint.

§ XV. Against the accusations of the Pentapolitans he defends himself by various little Works written to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff.

The Saint, for the sake of clearing himself, books, Dionysius, having received the letter of Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, and having been informed by it of the accusation brought against him by the Pentapolitans, held nothing more urgent than to wash away the crime of unsound doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity objected against him, and to remove from himself every sinister suspicion in this regard. Presently, for the sake of clearing himself, he wrote books under the name of Elenchus and Apologia, that is, refutation and defence, and directed them to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff. He, as the Greek text of Athanasius, immediately subjoined to the words recited at number 149, has word for word concerning Dionysius of Alexandria, at once wrote back (to Dionysius of Rome, namely, for the sake of clearing himself), and composed the books of the Elenchus and Apologia. Athanasius also teaches this very thing in two further little Works composed by him, namely one inscribed On the Synods, the other On the Decrees of the Nicene synod. In the former indeed, subjoining these to the words which we have transcribed from it at number 149: But he (Dionysius of Alexandria), for the sake of clearing himself, publishes (to Dionysius of Rome) a book with this title, Elenchus and Apologia: and in the latter writing thus: When … Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, from the things he had written against Sabellius, in which, namely, he explained the dispensation according to the flesh in very many words, and thence refuted the Sabellians, and showed that not the Father was made flesh, but the Word, as John says: when, I say, he had come under suspicion of having said that the Son was a thing made and created, and not consubstantial with the Father, he gave letters to the bishop of Rome, also called Dionysius; in which, clearing himself, he asserted that this calumny had been fabricated against him; for he affirmed that he had never said that the Son was made, but that he confessed Him to be consubstantial with the Father.

[156] Those books written by the Saint for the sake of clearing himself which are defined by the number four, and which were four in number, and were comprised in as many letters, or were distinguished by the name of letters. Eusebius, in book 7, chapter 26, enumerating some letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, has thus: He (Dionysius of Alexandria) also composed four books on the same argument (on the most holy Trinity, or its two first Persons), which he dedicated to his namesake, or of the same name (not his fellow-tribesman, as Valois wrongly renders), Dionysius, bishop of the Romans. Those books which Eusebius here records were written by Dionysius, and which St. Jerome, on the illustrious Writers of the Church, chapter 69, likewise counts among the Works composed by Dionysius, are taken by all the learned for the books which Dionysius of Alexandria, accused by the Pentapolitans of perverse doctrine concerning the second Person of the Trinity, gave in his own defence, as Athanasius testifies in the words just recited, to Dionysius of Rome, and distinguished with the title of Elenchus and Apologia, or Refutation and Defence. Wherefore, since the historian Eusebius and likewise Jerome define by the number four those books which they affirm Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Dionysius of Rome, the books of refutation and apology written by Dionysius of Alexandria to Dionysius of Rome were without doubt four in number. But, you will say, Athanasius, in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, mentions only the first, second and third book given by Dionysius of Alexandria for the sake of clearing himself to the Roman, and nowhere makes mention of the fourth. I confess; so it is. But that holy writer also nowhere says that Dionysius wrote not more than three books under the name of Elenchus and Apologia; and where he mentions either the first or the second or the third book written by the Saint under the name of Elenchus and Apologia, he does so only on the occasion of Fragments which he transcribes from those books because they serve his purpose, so that probably he did not mention the fourth book, which was likewise written by Dionysius concerning refutation and apology, for the reason that he did not think any Fragment from it was to be transcribed as serving the plan of his undertaking. Nothing, then, can be concluded here from the silence of Athanasius against the number four of the books which we judge Dionysius of Alexandria wrote concerning refutation and apology to Dionysius of Rome.

[157] [come from time to time under the name of letters, he wrote to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff,] Furthermore, I asserted above that those four books of Dionysius were comprised in as many letters, and I have so far brought forward no reason to prove this assertion. I therefore add it here now. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29, being about to transcribe some words from the second book of Dionysius's Elenchus and Apologia, prefaces these: Dionysius of Alexandria, which is even wonderful to hear, in the SECOND LETTER to his namesake concerning accusation and defence, in Greek περὶ ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀπολογίας, ended his discourse in this manner. Athanasius, On the opinion of Dionysius, brings forward words from the first book of his Refutation and Apology, presently to be transcribed here, in which Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to the Roman, hints that he had before the said first book written yet another letter, and accordingly St. Dionysius himself, in Athanasius, who also more than once distinguishes the said books of the Saint by the name of letters, counts that very first book of Dionysius among his letters. This is the reason why I asserted that the four books of Dionysius on Refutation and Apology were comprised by the Saint in as many letters, namely that these obtained the name of letters not only from others but also from their Author, and come from time to time under this appellation both among ancient and among modern writers. These things having been set down first concerning the appellation and number of the books which Dionysius published under the name of Elenchus and Apologia, it remains that I set forth here a little more concerning their argument than it is right to gather from what was said before. Yet the right order of events requires that I first treat here of yet another letter given by the Saint to Dionysius of Rome for the sake of clearing himself. For although Dionysius, having heard the accusation which the Pentapolitans were bringing against him, at once wrote the aforesaid four books, or letters, for the sake of clearing himself, these were nevertheless preceded by that other letter, written for the same end.

[158] before them, however, already another letter This is clear from the Fragment of the first book written by the Saint to Dionysius of Rome concerning refutation and defence, transcribed by Athanasius into his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius: for in it Dionysius mentions a letter already transmitted, at the time when he was writing that first book, to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, for the sake of clearing himself, so that this preceded the aforesaid first book and so also the three others written by Dionysius after it concerning the Elenchus and Apologia. I transcribe here the words from which the argument and end of the aforementioned letter also become known. For the rest, says Dionysius, where I said that things made and certain works were to be considered, I brought forward their examples cursorily as less useful, when I said: Neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the skiff the same as the shipwright: then I dwelt more on fitting examples and those more accommodated to the nature of the matter; and I set out at greater length those things which were of more certain credit, having devised various examples, which I wrote to you in another letter, by which I repelled their (the Pentapolitans') accusation, and showed it false, by which they said that I deny that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I confess that I have nowhere either found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless my arguments, which follow, and which they (the Pentapolitans) kept silent, differ nothing from this opinion. For I adduced as an example human offspring, which it is plain is of the same kind as the begetter: and I said that in truth parents differ from children in this alone, that they themselves are not the children: otherwise it would be necessary that there should exist neither parents nor children.

[159] Into two other treatises of his, of which one he had given to the same Pontiff for the same end as the said books: is inscribed On the decrees of the Nicene synod, the other On the Synods, Athanasius also brought these same words already transcribed here, beginning, namely, from these: In another letter, or, as it is also in the Greek, through another letter I wrote; but the pronoun to you, placed before these four words in the text just transcribed here, by which it is indicated that the letter mentioned there was written to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, is omitted in the two aforesaid treatises, so that you cannot draw out from these that the letter of which they treat, and of which we treat here, was written by Dionysius of Alexandria to the Roman. Since, however, the opposite also cannot be concluded from the same, one must stand by the text already transcribed here, in which Dionysius, by the pronoun to you, which is most certainly to be referred to the person to whom he writes, namely Dionysius of Rome, most clearly indicates that he inscribed the letter which, as he hints, he composed before his first book on refutation and defence, to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff. It is certain, then, that Dionysius, having heard the accusation which the Pentapolitans were bringing against him, gave the letter of which we treat here to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, for the sake of clearing himself, and only after this gave to the same Dionysius the four books, very often mentioned already, under the name of Elenchus and Apologia. Dionysius, then, in the letter which he first wrote when informed of the accusation brought against him, washed away briefly the crime of unsound doctrine objected against him, and afterwards accomplished this more fully by writing the four books on Refutation and Apology. But enough has been done concerning that letter: I return to the books.

[160] The Saint inscribes these Of the Elenchus and Apologia, or Of the Refutation and Defence, and these for refuting his accusers, and for defending his writings for this reason, that in them he refutes his accusers as strayed from the truth, and strives to defend the things which he wrote before in the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. The latter he certainly tries to effect with all his strength. For in the aforesaid four books he aims almost solely at removing from himself the suspicion of unsound doctrine, disputing by no means at all against Pope Dionysius, to whom he writes, or against his

opinion concerning the Trinity, attacking it. For, says Athanasius of Dionysius in the treatise on his opinion, he did not write in a spirit of contention, but for the sake of defending himself and removing suspicion from himself. He answers each of the words produced against him from the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, and contends that the depraved sense, on account of which he is accused of perverse doctrine, by no means underlies them, meanwhile changing nothing, retracting nothing of all that he wrote. He also complains of his accusers, that they had reported the sentences which he had uttered not entire but truncated, and had separated them from the context of the discourse. He then complains, says Athanasius again of Dionysius in the said treatise, that the accusers report his sentences not entire but truncated, and that they speak not with a good conscience but with a bad one, at their own pleasure: whom he says are like the calumniators of the epistles of the blessed Apostle. Furthermore, this remonstrance of the Man removes every sinister suspicion. For if he thinks the calumniators of Paul like his own, he certainly declares nothing else than that he wrote thus, thinking with Paul. Certainly, meeting each word of his accusers, he applies a solution to all their arguments.

[161] [he composed, and that while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting or already calmed:] And these are the things which Dionysius chiefly accomplishes in the four books of the Elenchus and Apologia of which we treat here. But since, as I have said, he also complains that the accusers had truncated the sentences which he had uttered in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, hence most probably it is that he desired to send to Pontiff Dionysius the very letter which he had written to Ammon and Euphranor, signifying this desire of his thus in Athanasius, in these words, which are immediately subjoined to those recited at number 158: But the letter, as I said before, I do not have with me on account of the present condition of affairs; otherwise I would have sent you the very words which I then wrote, nay a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it, if ever I have the means. In this manner Dionysius was at the same time prepared to submit his writings to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff, and this, as appears, he most earnestly desired. Nor do we learn only this from the words of Dionysius just recited, but also the time about which the Saint composed his books on the Elenchus and Apologia. For in them Dionysius says that, on account of the state in which affairs were at the time when he was writing, he did not have at hand the letter written to Ammonius and Euphranor to send to Pontiff Dionysius. The Saint therefore seems to have written those books in some disturbed state of affairs, so that, since they were most certainly not written before the year 257, as you will easily gather from what was said at number 142, he most probably composed them either while the persecution of Valerian lasted, when he was still in exile, or when he had returned from exile to Alexandria, but when affairs there had been disturbed, according to what is to be said below, in the year 262; for he did not do it later than the year 262 either, as will turn out most probable from what is to be said below.

[162] [that they be established as written while it was still lasting, Athanasius supports;] Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 280, thinks, on account of the words of Dionysius recited from Athanasius in the preceding number, that the said books on the Elenchus and Apologia were written by the Saint either towards the end of the persecution set in motion by Valerian, or when that persecution had indeed been calmed, but affairs at Alexandria, when Dionysius had already returned there after the persecution, were thrown into disorder. And he places in the lower margin of the page a little Note, in which he indicates that St. Athanasius supports the first part of the disjunction, according to which Dionysius wrote the said books towards the end of the persecution of Valerian, when he says in the book On the Synods, number 43, that the two Dionysii, namely the Roman Pontiff and our Alexandrian, lived a very long time before the synod of Antioch, celebrated in the year 269 or 270, proscribed the heresy of Paul of Samosata. And indeed, unless what is presently to be said stood in the way, something could be had from this passage of St. Athanasius for referring the writing of the said books to the persecution of Valerian. For this Saint, in that very Work cited, in which he says that the two Dionysii lived a very long time before the aforesaid synod of Antioch, at the same time hints that they condemned the Sabellian doctrine concerning the Trinity a very long time before the same synod, and admitted the word consubstantial, or τὸ Ὄμοουσίον. Now since Dionysius did this chiefly in those books which, when accused by the Pentapolitans of unsound doctrine, he gave to Dionysius of Rome, and since, as appears, by the indefinite adverbs of time ἔμπροσθεν πολὺ, that is, long before, by which Athanasius in the place cited above defines the time between the proscription of the Sabellian heresy made by Dionysius and the synod of Antioch, less than a space of ten years cannot be understood, it is necessary that the books of Dionysius, very often mentioned, were written towards the end of the persecution set in motion by Valerian, which falls in the year 260. Certainly, as I have already said, this conclusion could perhaps be admitted, unless what is to be said stood in the way.

[163] But, you will say, what are these things? I answer: from what was said before it is certain and undoubted afterwards nevertheless, as is here proved, that Dionysius did not write his books on refutation and apology before he had been informed by Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, of the accusation brought against him by the Pentapolitans. Now Dionysius of Rome did not inform the Alexandrian of the accusation which the Pentapolitans had brought against him except after a synod had been celebrated at Rome, and a sentence had been pronounced in it against the doctrine of Dionysius denounced by the Pentapolitans. Wherefore, since it is not likely that a synod was celebrated by Pontiff Dionysius while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting, it seems certainly to follow that this was not done before, Valerian having been captured by the Persians, peace was restored to the Church by Gallienus. Since, then, Dionysius, as I have just said, wrote his books on refutation and apology after the said Roman synod, it becomes certain that these were not written while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting. And this is what chiefly stands in the way of the opinion which establishes those books as written while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting appearing to me admissible. Nor is there reason why anyone should be greatly moved by the argument to the contrary just produced from Athanasius. For I do not see why the aforementioned adverbs of indefinite time ἔμπροσθεν πολὺ, that is, long before, cannot equally be restricted to signifying a space of only about eight years as of ten. St. Athanasius did not here pursue rigour in speaking. Tillemont, in the little Note mentioned above, observes that the aforesaid adverbs cannot be extended except to a decade, and since at the same time he nevertheless thinks, and deservedly, that those adverbial particles of themselves imply a more extended space of years, he suspects that an error has crept into the passage of Athanasius mentioned above, and that one should read only ἔμπροσθεν, omitting πολὺ, so that the sense is that the Dionysii proscribed the Sabellian heresy before, but not long before, the council of Antioch. But the Benedictines, in the edition of Athanasius which they have most recently prepared, have ἔμπροσθεν πολὺ, and assign no variant reading from the Manuscripts, and accordingly I do not think Tillemont's suspicion is to be admitted. Therefore, since, from what has been said, the books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia were not written before the end of the persecution set in motion by Valerian, which is to be attached, as we shall show, to the year 260, and so the word Ὄμοουσίος, or consubstantial, was also not admitted by the Saint before it, it is altogether necessary that by these adverbs of indefinite time ἔμπροσθεν πολὺ, that is, long before, no space of time is assigned by Athanasius which should be extended beyond about eight years.

[164] namely, they had been written in the year 261 or certainly 262, and so For by those adverbs Athanasius signifies the time between the council of Antioch, celebrated, as I have already said, in the year 269 or 270, and the proscription of the Sabellian heresy made by Dionysius of Rome in the Roman synod, and then by Dionysius of Alexandria in the books on the Elenchus and Apologia; and since this proscription did not, from what has been said, take place before the end of the persecution set in motion by Valerian, it follows that it took place either in the year 260 or even later. Furthermore, since the persecution of Valerian did not come to an end before the last six months, as I shall show below, of the year 260, it becomes likely to me that the Roman synod in which the cause of Dionysius of Alexandria was discussed was not celebrated before the said year, when it had already almost run to its end; and accordingly that the books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia, as written after it, were not composed earlier than the year 261; namely when, Valerian having already been captured and led away into Persia, Macrianus, a most hostile enemy of the Christian name, had seized the tyranny in Egypt, and affairs being therefore still disturbed, Dionysius had not yet returned to Alexandria. And thus indeed we now have both that the time designated by the adverbs mentioned above does not extend beyond nearly eight years, and also the time before which the books of Dionysius on Refutation and Apology were most probably not written. But were these not composed later than the said year 261? Nothing indeed hinders the writing of those books from being deferred up to the year 262, or 263, or 264, since in these years affairs at Alexandria were also in a disturbed state, whether by war or by plague: but lest the space placed by Athanasius, by the adverbial particles ἔμπροσθεν πολὺ, that is, long before, between the aforesaid proscription of the Sabellian heresy and the synod of Antioch should become too narrow, I prefer to establish the writing of the said books of our Saint in the year 261 or certainly 262, rather than later. But concerning the epoch of this writing, as also concerning the time at which the council of Alexandria, which Dionysius perhaps celebrated against the Sabellians according to what was said at number 144, is to be placed, I shall bring forward some things more below for the sake of clarity, when I frame my discourse on the Saint's return to Alexandria from exile after the persecution.

[165] [whatever Dionysius did on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy is to be placed between the years 257 and 263.] From what has been said so far it is easy to gather within what space of time whatever Dionysius either did or suffered on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy is to be included. The letter by which Dionysius informed Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff, of the Sabellian heresy when it first arose was most certainly written before the year 259, as I have shown, and this is the first of all those which are known to have been written by Dionysius on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy. Moreover the books which the Saint published under the name of Elenchus and Apologia were written in the year 261 or 262, as we have shown, nor is Dionysius known, after writing these, to have done or endured anything worthy of mention on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy. Whatever, therefore, Dionysius either did or endured on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy all happened between the year 257 and the year 263. I thus define in a broader way the epoch of the various letters written and deeds done by the Saint, because nothing is available from which I might define for certain in what year each was written. The letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, however, as I have already advised above, I think was written about the year 259. Furthermore, on the occasion of those

things which were said above concerning the space of time most probably designated by Athanasius through the adverbial particles of indefinite time, already produced more than once before, it is fitting to observe here that it is not strange if our Saint sometimes designates by similar particles of time a space of only about twenty years; as he in fact does in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 7, in the letter to Philemon, already often cited before, writing thus: I have learned that this custom (of rebaptizing those baptized by heretics) was not now first introduced by the Africans alone; but that long before, in the times of earlier bishops, the same was sanctioned both in the councils of the brethren at Iconium and Synnada, and among very many others. By which words he hints that the rebaptism of heretics was sanctioned long before the decree of Cyprian and the synod of Carthage concerning rebaptizing heretics, in the councils of Synnada and Iconium, which nevertheless preceded the decree of Cyprian and the other African bishops concerning the rebaptism of heretics by only about twenty years or a little more. I proceed now to other matters which can be investigated concerning our Saint on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy.

§ XVI. Whether Dionysius was deservedly accused by the Pentapolitans of error concerning the most holy Trinity.

Dionysius, having rendered an account of his faith, was held orthodox; Whatever Dionysius wrote in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor concerning the most holy Trinity or its second Person, there is indeed no doubt that he was freed from every suspicion of error and held orthodox by Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, and by the synod convoked by him at Rome, when, by letters given to Dionysius of Rome, he had rendered a strict account of the things he had written in the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. It is right to gather this from St. Athanasius, when he writes thus in the book On the Opinion of Dionysius against the Arians, number 3: It is certainly a great argument that they (the Arians) do not speak truly in this (that he was of their opinion), but calumniate the Man (St. Dionysius), that neither was he ever condemned by other bishops for impiety detected in him and driven from his episcopate, as they (the Arians) were cast out of the clergy: nor did he withdraw from the Church for the sake of defending a heresy: but he fell asleep piously in her, and his memory has been celebrated until now with the fathers, and has been entered in the roll together with them. For if he had thought the same things as they, or if he had not rendered an account of his writings, there is not the least doubt that he would have had to be punished with the same penalty as they. By which words it is most clearly hinted that Dionysius rendered an account of his doctrine, and that, this having been rendered, he was not found guilty of heresy or perverse doctrine. And indeed I show by another reason besides that Dionysius, having rendered an account of his faith to Dionysius of Rome, was held guilty or suspect of no perverse doctrine, but orthodox. In the year 265 a synod was celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, as I shall show below, and to it, in which the second Person of the Trinity was to be treated against the said Paul, St. Dionysius was called, as will become evident from what is to be said. But this would by no means have been done unless it had already been plain to all that his faith concerning the divine nature of Christ was sound and held for orthodox.

[167] it is doubtful, however, whether he was deservedly accused by the Pentapolitans: It ought therefore to be certain, and placed beyond all controversy, that Dionysius of Alexandria, having rendered an account of his faith concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity, was held orthodox by Dionysius the Roman Pontiff and by the whole Church. But here it can now be asked whether, in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, on the occasion of which he was accused of error by the Pentapolitans, he did not in fact fall into any error on account of which he could deservedly be denounced to the Apostolic See. Would that the aforesaid letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, preserved from destruction, had been transmitted from antiquity to our age entire and unimpaired! That question could be decided with almost no trouble. But since that letter has perished, it remains doubtful whether in it the Saint uttered absolutely no words or sentences from which he could deservedly be accused of error. And this matter becomes the more doubtful for this reason too, that the judgment of all the ancient writers concerning it is not one and concordant. Among these St. Basil and St. Athanasius chiefly come to be considered. Of Basil I shall speak afterwards. St. Athanasius, in the said Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, admits that certain words, which in a simple and bare exposition of faith would be to be condemned, were uttered by Dionysius in the letter which he gave to Ammonius and Euphranor, and excuses them only from the sense and end in which they were uttered. I transcribe the very words of this holy Father which chiefly bear on this.

[168] [he asserted indeed, as Athanasius admits, that the Son of God was a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father;] They say, then, he says in the Treatise just cited again, number 4, speaking of the Arians, that Dionysius of blessed memory (bishop of Alexandria) said in his letter (to Ammonius and Euphranor) that the Son of God is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine, and the shipwright from the skiff: for since He is a thing made, He was not before He was made. The Arians contended that this doctrine was delivered by Dionysius in the letter which he had given to Ammonius and Euphranor. But what does Athanasius answer to these? Yes, he subjoins to the words just recited, he wrote, namely such things, Dionysius; that his letter (given, namely, to Ammonius and Euphranor) is of this kind we too readily confess. But as he wrote this one, so also he wrote very many other letters, which they (the Arians) ought also to have read; so that the faith of the Man might be explored from all, not from one only. For the skill of a shipwright who has built many triremes is to be estimated not from one only but from all together. If, then, he wrote this letter which they speak of simply as setting out his faith; or if he wrote this one alone, let them accuse him at their pleasure; for truly in that case matter for accusing is at hand. But if the circumstance of the time and person compelled him to write such things, and he afterwards wrote other letters to remove that suspicion (of perverse doctrine concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity), it was not fitting, the causes of writing being passed over, rashly to stir up ill-will against the Man, lest they should seem to be catching at nothing but little words, and to pass over the truth, which shows itself in his other letters. The causes which compelled Dionysius to write such things, and which also involve the end for which he did it, he subjoins after a few things interposed. The words in which he does this I have already transcribed at number 145, to which, therefore, studious reader, I refer you. As regards the sense from which Athanasius also excuses the words of Dionysius uttered above concerning the Son of God, I shall treat of it when I have first set down some things more concerning these.

[169] St. Athanasius, as is clear from the preceding number, [but he denied, as the same Athanasius testifies, that he had asserted these things;] barely and simply admits that St. Dionysius said in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine and the shipwright from the skiff. Dionysius, therefore, according to Athanasius, asserted that the Son of God is a creature or a made work, and is not consubstantial with the Father. But Dionysius most openly denied both the one and the other in the books or letters which he gave to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, for the sake of clearing himself. This is clear both from the Fragments which Athanasius brought from Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia into his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, and from those things which this same holy Writer also left consigned to writing in the book On the Decrees of the Nicene synod, number 25. The words in which he recorded it in the latter place have indeed been recited before; but I shall recite them here again on account of the very great clarity with which they express the matter. They are these: When, he says, he (Dionysius of Alexandria, namely) had come under suspicion of having said that the Son was a thing made and created, and not consubstantial with the Father, he gave letters to the bishop of Rome, also called Dionysius, in which, clearing himself, he asserted that this calumny had been fabricated against him; for he affirmed that he had never said that the Son was made, but that he confessed Him to be consubstantial with the Father. And among the Fragments brought by Athanasius from Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia into his treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, one occurs at number 18, bearing chiefly on this, and already transcribed before, in which Dionysius, aptly refuting his accusers, or the Pentapolitans, who had asserted that the Son was counted by him among things made, and that it was denied by him that He is consubstantial with the Father, writes thus to Dionysius of Rome: For the rest, where I said that things made and certain works were to be considered, I brought forward their examples cursorily as less useful, when I said: Neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the skiff the same as the shipwright: then I dwelt more on fitting examples and those more accommodated to the nature of the matter; and I set out at greater length those things which were of more certain credit, having devised various examples, which I wrote to you in another letter, by which I repelled their accusation, and showed it false, by which they said that I deny that Christ is consubstantial with the Father. By which words Dionysius most openly denies that he said that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father.

[170] Dionysius therefore denied that he had asserted the Son not consubstantial with the Father; [and indeed he could deservedly deny, in a certain sense, that he had said the first;] and this is established both from the testimony of the Saint himself and from the words of Athanasius just recited, by which it is moreover indicated that it was never said by Dionysius that the Son was made, or a creature. How then does Athanasius (see the words recited at number 168), when the Arians object that Dionysius said in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance; how, I say, when the Arians object these things, does Athanasius answer: Yes, he wrote (these things, namely, Dionysius): that his letter is of this kind we too readily confess? Can Dionysius have said and at the same time not have said that the Son is a thing made, or a creature? Can he have asserted that the Son of God is not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, and at the same time not have said that He is not consubstantial with the Father? As regards the first of these two last questions, Dionysius can have said that the Son of God, considered in His human flesh, is a thing made, and at the same time afterwards, when he was accused of having said it considering His divine nature, have denied that he ever professed this impious doctrine, and asserted that this was a calumny fastened on him. But to some, says Athanasius, On the Opinion of Dionysius, number 21, answering him (St. Dionysius) unskilfully, or rather, as it is in the Greek, ἀσυνειδήτως, that is, with a bad conscience or in bad faith,

for having said that God was the maker of Christ, he employed various arguments for the sake of clearing himself; saying that his words were not so to be reprehended: for he affirms that he used the name of maker on account of the flesh which the Word had assumed, which was certainly made. In like manner, then, to those objecting or affirming that Dionysius had said that the Son of God is a thing made or a creature, the Saint could have replied, and most probably did reply, that he had said this not on account of His divine nature, but on account of the flesh which He had assumed, which was certainly made.

[171] although the same sense is not founded in Dionysius as regards the second, And thus indeed we have how Athanasius, by the words just recited, could concede to the Arians that Dionysius said that the Son of God is a thing made or a creature, and the Saint nevertheless could deservedly deny that he had said it. But, this diversity of senses being likewise assigned, can it be explained how Athanasius concedes to the Arians that Dionysius said that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, and the Saint nevertheless denies that he asserted the Son of God not consubstantial with the Father? The matter certainly not only can, but also, as I shall show below, must be so explained: yet this explanation is not founded in Dionysius himself equally with the preceding one. For the Saint nowhere affirms that he denied the Son of God to be consubstantial with the Father on account of the flesh, or rather according to the flesh, which He had assumed; but everywhere in the Fragments which Athanasius recites from his books on the Elenchus and Apologia he most openly, and at the same time with no diversity of sense adduced, most expressly denies that he denied the Son of God to be consubstantial with the Father. St. Athanasius himself acknowledges this, On the Opinion of Dionysius, number 19, writing thus: But if they (the Arians, namely) think that this was not rightly said, why do they boast of Dionysius, who says this very thing, as thinking with them; especially since he says this (that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father) not in passing, but, having sent other letters before, convicts of falsehood those who accused him as though he said that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father; and refutes those who thought he had said that the Word was made, denying that he thinks as they suppose: but though he uttered those words, he testifies that he said it only in order to show that it is not the Father but the Son who put on a body founded, created and made: wherefore the Son is said to have been founded, made and created.

[172] Dionysius, therefore, as is clear from these words of Athanasius, and the Saint really asserted the Son of God not consubstantial with the Father, in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia admitted indeed that he had said that the Son of God is a thing made or a creature, and interpreted this saying of his as taken of the Son of God according to the flesh which He assumed; but he constantly denied that he had said that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father; and that with no mention added of either the human or the Divine nature according to which he denied it, so that the Saint meant that he had in no sense at all said that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father. But, you will say, if this is so, Dionysius most certainly conflicts with Athanasius, since the latter, by the words recited above, concedes to the Arians that Dionysius said that the Son is alien from the Father according to substance, and accordingly is not consubstantial with Him. I confess: I do not see by what reasoning our Saint can here be sufficiently brought into concord with Athanasius. But I here agree with Athanasius, who admits that the Son was said by Dionysius to be alien from the Father according to substance, and I think that the Saint in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia denied that the Son had been said by him to be not consubstantial with the Father for this reason, that in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor he had nowhere in express terms denied that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and at that time did not remember that he had anywhere said in the said letter that the Son is alien from the Father according to substance, from which it followed that He is not consubstantial with the Father. Nor is there reason why anyone should think this absurd. For Dionysius, when writing his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, did not have in hand, as he himself testifies in the words recited at number 161, the letter which he had before given to Ammonius and Euphranor, and in which, by the testimony of Athanasius, he had affirmed that the Son is alien from the Father according to substance. The Saint, then, could afterwards not have been sufficiently mindful that he had affirmed this, especially since in the said letter, out of a more vehement and in a manner excessive ardour of struggling against the Sabellian heresy, from which forgetfulness easily tends to arise, he had written very many things, and, various arguments having been adduced, had discoursed on those things which pertain to the human nature of the Saviour.

[173] So certainly Dionysius must here be explained, lest he should have to be said to conflict with Athanasius: [he nevertheless denied in good faith that he had asserted it, and it ought also to be explained of the Son of God] for one does not care to say with Rufinus that the letter given to Ammonius and Euphranor, in which, as Athanasius admits, Dionysius asserted that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, was corrupted by the enemies of Dionysius; for from this it would follow that Athanasius, when in the words recited at number 168 he admits the aforesaid letter as a genuine letter of Dionysius, was deceived; and this I think in no way likely. And indeed how could it be likely that Athanasius was deceived here, who beyond doubt examined most diligently and at the same time most accurately both St. Dionysius's letter to Ammonius and Euphranor and also the books on the Elenchus and Apologia written to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff? Let it remain, then, certain and undoubted that Dionysius, at the time when he was writing to Dionysius of Rome for the sake of clearing himself, remembered less rightly the things which he had written in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, and thus in good faith afterwards denied in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia what he had before affirmed in that letter, making the Son of God alien from the Father according to substance. But although Dionysius did in fact assert in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son is alien from the Father according to substance, there is nevertheless no reason why you should think that he was of perverse doctrine, or that at the time when he was writing the said letter he did not speak orthodoxly. For the Saint, as I have already hinted above, could have said that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance in no other sense than that in which he asserted that He is a thing made or created. And this he asserted only of the Son considered according to the flesh which He assumed; in which assertion certainly no error at all lies hidden.

[174] [taken according to the human nature, although the Saint himself did not have recourse to that,] But, you will say, Dionysius, as appears, had said in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that God the Father is compared to the Son as the husbandman to the plant, and as the shipwright is compared to the skiff, and partly for this cause the Pentapolitans accused Dionysius as though he had said that the Son is counted among things made (see Athanasius, On the Opinion of Dionysius, number 18), and is by no means consubstantial with the Father; but in order that the Saint may refute this head of the accusation brought against him, he does not say that he spoke of the Son of God according to the flesh which He assumed, certainly made, but uses this far different answer: For the rest (go to Athanasius in the place just cited), where I said that things made and certain works were to be considered, I brought forward their examples cursorily as less useful, when I said: Neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the skiff the same as the shipwright: then I dwelt more on fitting examples and those more accommodated to the nature of the matter. Since, then, as is clear from these transcribed words, Dionysius himself, in order to reconcile an orthodox sense to his sayings of which we treat here, does not have recourse to the Son of God considered according to the human nature, neither is recourse to be had to it by us in order to maintain that the Saint spoke orthodoxly. Moreover, the Saint, in that place of the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor in which he asserted that God the Father is compared to the Son as the husbandman to the plant and as the shipbuilder is compared to the skiff, most certainly treated of the Son of God not regarded according to the human nature. This is clear from other comparisons which he also brought forward there. For he also said there (see again Athanasius in the place just cited) that the Son of God is compared to the Father as the son in human generation to the father, the river to the spring, and the plant is compared to the root.

[175] that assertion be explained; Wherefore, since neither is the son in human generation distinguished from the father, nor the river from the spring, nor the plant from the root, in essence or nature, Dionysius means by those comparisons that the Son of God is not different from the Father in nature or essence. Now since the Son of God, according to the human flesh which He assumed, certainly differs from the Father in essence, it is necessary that Dionysius, when he employs comparisons of this kind, makes his discourse of the Son of God not considered according to the human nature. In order, then, to hold that Dionysius spoke orthodoxly when he asserted that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, in the way in which the vine is from the husbandman and the skiff from the shipwright, we cannot fittingly interpret him of the Son of God according to the human flesh which He assumed. I answer that this assertion of the Saint, just mentioned, most certainly cannot be explained in an orthodox sense except by having recourse to the human nature of Christ, and it is not to be doubted that Dionysius, when he uttered it in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, spoke of Christ regarded according to that nature; and that he did not answer that he had done this at that time, in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, beyond doubt for this reason, that at the time when he was writing these he did not remember sufficiently rightly, as we have shown, that he had asserted in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance. Hence it is that, in order to maintain that Dionysius spoke orthodoxly when he asserted that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, we judge that recourse must be had to the human nature of Christ. As regards the comparisons of the vine and the husbandman, of the skiff and the shipwright, mentioned at number 174, granting even that the Saint, when he employed them, spoke of the Son of God not considered according to the human nature, these too, even this being admitted, if they are taken separately, can have been employed by Dionysius in an orthodox sense.

[176] For although the Son of God, not considered according to the human nature, but certain other sayings of Dionysius can is not distinguished from the Father in the way in which the plant is from the husbandman and the shipwright from the skiff, Dionysius, when employing comparisons of this kind, did not wish to assign between God the Father and the Son the perfect mode of distinction which is found between the things he adduces in comparison. And indeed those examples of the skiff and the shipbuilder, of the plant and the husbandman, he brought forward only cursorily, as he says, as less useful, since he saw clearly enough that the skiff differs from the shipbuilder and the plant from the husbandman in nature or

essence, and accordingly that the Son of God is not perfectly compared to the Father in the way in which the plant is compared to the husbandman and the skiff to the shipbuilder. Thus, when Dionysius produced examples of this kind, he meant by them only to hint that a distinction intervenes between the Son of God and the Father, even according to the divine Persons or Hypostases; but what or of what kind that is he does not declare. But by the following comparisons which he employs, of the river and the spring, of the father and the son, he sufficiently indicates that he does not establish a distinction between God the Father and the Son as regards nature or substance, that is, does not make the Father alien from the Son according to substance or nature. And, he says after the words just recited from Athanasius, I set out at greater length those things which were of more certain credit, having devised various examples, which I wrote to you in another letter, by which I repelled their (the Pentapolitans') accusation, and showed it false, by which they said that I deny that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I confess that I have nowhere either found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless my arguments, which follow, and which they kept silent, differ nothing from this opinion. For I brought forward as an example human offspring, which it is plain is of the same kind as the begetter.

[177] So Dionysius, by these words referred to the words which he had set down immediately before, assertions can be explained in an orthodox sense, even without having recourse indicating that, the context of his sentences and words being considered, he did not teach the doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity imputed to him by the Pentapolitans. And thus you now have how Dionysius could without error compare the Son of God to the Father as the plant to the husbandman, even though he was believed not to have spoken of the Son of God according to the flesh which He assumed. There are also other things on account of which the Pentapolitans either suspected, or at least could suspect, that Dionysius erred concerning the most holy Trinity, and yet recourse was not to be had to the human nature of Christ in order that a Catholic sense might be adapted to them, nor is recourse everywhere had to it by the Saint. When Dionysius (see Athanasius in the Treatise very often cited, number 16) says the Father, he does not name the Son; and conversely, when he says the Son, he does not mention the Father, but divides, removes and separates the Son from the Father. So the Pentapolitans argued against the Saint, suspecting, namely, that God the Father was divided by Dionysius from the Son according to substance or essence. But Dionysius does not answer to this that his discourse was of the Son of God taken according to the human flesh or nature, nor indeed was it necessary. I transcribe the Saint's own words, extant in Athanasius in the Treatise just cited again, number 17, and bearing on this. Each of the names uttered by me, he says, can neither be separated nor divided from one another: I said the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I had already signified Him in the Father; I added the Son, and even if I had not first named the Father, He had nevertheless been comprehended in the name of the Son: I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I added both whence and through whom He proceeded. But they do not know that neither can the Father, inasmuch as He is father, be alienated from the Son, for that name is the origin of conjunction; nor the Son separated from the Father, for the word Father indicates something common. And in their hands is the Spirit, who can be separated neither from the one sending nor from the one bearing. How then should I, who use such names, think them separated from one another and altogether divided? In this manner the Saint, not having recourse to the human nature of Christ, renders an account of how he disjoins the Son of God from the Father, and yet does not divide the latter from the former altogether, or as regards substance or essence.

[178] to the human nature of Christ. Furthermore, Dionysius had said in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that God the Father is the Creator of all things, and hence his accusers could suspect that God the Father, in the opinion of Dionysius, was also the maker of His Son, and accordingly that the Son is a thing made or a creature. The Saint, in order to show this suspicion vain, or resting on no foundation, answers in these words the difficulty here proposed, which could have been objected to him, and which he also satisfied elsewhere in another way: But if any of the sycophants (so he calls his accusers on account of what is to be said), because I said that God is the maker and creator of all things, thinks that I also said that He is the maker of Christ, let him observe that I first called Him the Father, in which word the Son is included. For after I said that the Father is maker, I subjoined: Neither is the Father father of those things of which He is maker, if He is properly understood to be Father who has begotten; (for we shall inquire into the breadth of this word, Father, in what follows) nor is a father a maker, if the craftsman alone is called maker: for among the Greeks those who are wise are called the makers of their books, and the Apostle says, Maker of the law: for men are also makers of internal things, of which kind are virtue and vice, as God said: I waited that he should make judgment, but he made iniquity. So again Dionysius, not having recourse to the human nature of Christ, most fully meets the suspicion by which anyone might have suspected that the Son of God was counted by him among created things, for the reason that he had called God the Father the Creator of all things in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. Some things, therefore, which he wrote in the letter just mentioned again, less orthodox in appearance, have, even according to the exposition of Dionysius, an eminently orthodox sense, even though for asserting it for the sayings of the holy Man recourse is not had to the human nature of Christ.

[179] But, you will say, it follows from this that the Pentapolitans, on the occasion of the letter the Pentapolitans nevertheless, as even St. Athanasius admits, which he had given to Ammonius and Euphranor, denounced Dionysius to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, as guilty of violated faith for no reason at all. I answer: the Pentapolitans, as it appears to me at least, denounced our Saint to the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff as the assertor of an impious doctrine not altogether without any cause, at least just in appearance. St. Athanasius himself, even though he defends against the Arians the opinion of St. Dionysius concerning the most holy Trinity, insinuates this not obscurely, writing thus of Dionysius in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, number 4: If, then, he wrote this letter which they speak of (to Ammonius and Euphranor) simply as setting out his faith; or if he wrote this one alone, let them accuse him at their pleasure; for truly in that case matter for accusing is at hand. By which words St. Athanasius confesses that St. Dionysius of Alexandria would be rightly called by the Arians into the fellowship of their opinion concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity if he had written only the one letter to Ammonius and Euphranor circulated under his name. Wherefore, since the Pentapolitans, when they accused Dionysius of perverse doctrine before the Roman Pontiff, had in hand only the one letter written to Ammonius and Euphranor (for the books on the Elenchus and Apologia had not yet been written), they had, in the opinion of Athanasius, a just reason for denouncing Dionysius to the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff as guilty of violated faith.

[180] And indeed this seems to be concluded not only from the opinion of Athanasius, seem to have had a just cause for accusing Dionysius, but also from those things which St. Dionysius himself committed to writing in the aforesaid letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. For in it the Saint had written very much about the humanity of Christ, very little about His Deity, and hence a suspicion was apt to arise that he altogether disjoined the Son from God the Father, because the human nature of Christ is disjoined from and alien to the Divine according to essence. And although the Saint held this manner of writing with the best counsel, and, while writing the things which pertained to the human nature of Christ, had clearly perceived and believed what is delivered in the Scriptures concerning His divine substance and essence, this pious intention of the holy Man and purity of faith were nevertheless altogether unknown to the Pentapolitans. Moreover, in the same letter the Saint had written that the Son of God (see number 168) is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine and the shipwright from the skiff: and although these sayings of the Saint (go to what we discussed at number 170 and following) can be explained in an orthodox sense, and most of them were afterwards so explained by the Saint himself in the books he wrote on the Elenchus and Apologia, the Pentapolitans nevertheless most probably did not perceive that orthodox sense which was to be fitted to the words of Dionysius, and hence, taking the said words of Dionysius in a heterodox or perverse sense, of which, considered in themselves, they were also capable, thought that the Son of God, even considered according to the Divine nature, was asserted by Dionysius to be a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father; so that they had a reason, at least apparently just, for denouncing the holy Man to the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff as guilty of violated faith.

[181] But, you will reply, Dionysius, in Athanasius, in the book On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, and this is not weakened by certain sayings of the Saint. and also in the Treatise written against the Arians on the opinion of Dionysius, from time to time calls his accusers, or those who had denounced him to the Roman Pontiff as infected with an impious opinion against the most holy Trinity, sycophants, liars and calumniators, as is plain from the texts of Athanasius transcribed here above; and it does not seem likely that they would have been visited by the Saint with opprobrious appellations of this kind if they had denounced him to the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff for no other than a just cause. I answer: Dionysius was firmly persuaded that he had not asserted in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, or is not consubstantial with the Father; and since they had denounced the holy Man to the Roman Pontiff as the assertor of an impious doctrine against the most holy Trinity, by which the Son is established as different from the Father in essence in the Godhead, Dionysius could regard that denunciation as a calumny, and accordingly, since at the same time he bore most grievously that he was accused by them before the Roman Pontiff of suspect or perverse faith, call its authors liars, calumniators and sycophants. It is not strange that a man eminently orthodox should be less patient under an accusation of heresy. Moreover the Pentapolitans, as we have already shown, had separated certain texts of the letter written by the Saint to Ammonius and Euphranor from the rest of the discourse, and partly from these had made Dionysius guilty of violated faith, not perceiving that those texts, compared with what precedes and follows, could be explained in an orthodox sense. And since (see number 160 of this Commentary) the Saint judged that this had been done by them not in good but in bad faith, he could hold them in the place of calumniators, and accordingly assail them with the aforesaid opprobrious appellations in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia; so that from the harsh modes of appellation which Dionysius used against his accusers it can by no means be concluded that they were destitute of absolutely every cause, even one just only in appearance, for which the Saint

of a depraved opinion, accused him.

[182] but on the contrary from St. Basil, who affirms that by Dionysius Therefore, although, all that has so far been said being considered, it is indeed still doubtful whether Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor wrote absolutely nothing on account of which he was not undeservedly accused of error by the Pentapolitans before Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, the opinion of those who affirm it nevertheless seems to me the more probable. For besides that both the things we brought forward at number 180 and the words we transcribed from Athanasius at number 179 favour it not a little, this same holy Writer, in the very place in which he relates that Dionysius was accused of error before the Roman Pontiff, calls the Pentapolitans (see the words recited at number 149) men of sound doctrine, and, although they had accused the holy Man of unsound doctrine without first asking the cause of his writing, he carps at or taunts them with no word at all, which he would certainly probably have done, since he is defending Dionysius in the same place, if they had denounced the holy Man to the Roman chair by calumny, or if he had not given a just cause for the accusation brought against him by them. Moreover Basil, who, as I have already advised above, chiefly comes into consideration here together with St. Athanasius, in the ninth letter, to Maximus the Philosopher, expressly affirms that Dionysius of Alexandria, namely in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, establishes a difference of essence between God the Father and the Son; so that, in the opinion of this holy father, Dionysius gave a just cause for being accused by the Pentapolitans of error concerning the most holy Trinity. In order that the learned reader may be able the more fittingly to pass his judgment on the matter, I transcribe here Basil's very words bearing on this.

[183] And, says this holy father, whereas it would have sufficed him (Dionysius of Alexandria) a difference of essence is established in the Trinity, to demonstrate that the Father and the Son are not the same in subject, and to hold this as the chief point against the blasphemer (Sabellius); in order to have a victory altogether manifest and overflowing, he established not only an otherness of hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and a gradation of power and diversity of glory. Wherefore it came about from this that he exchanged indeed evil for evil, and strayed from right doctrine. Hence also he is not consistent with himself in his writings, now removing the Consubstantial on account of him who used this word wrongly for destroying the hypostases; now admitting it in those things which he wrote for the sake of defence to his namesake (Dionysius, namely, the Roman Pontiff). So Basil, most clearly teaching that a difference of essence between God the Father and the Son is established by Dionysius. The Benedictines, in the edition of the Works of St. Basil which I use here, published by the Parisian press in the thirtieth year of this century, observe thus on the words of the said St. Basil transcribed here: The Arians feigned that Dionysius had said, Since the Son is a thing made, He was not before He was made. And they cite for proving this assertion of theirs the fourth number of the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius written by Athanasius, and add that false testimonies of this kind of the Arians perhaps deceived Basil, and accordingly were the cause of his asserting that a difference of essence between God the Father and the Son was established by Dionysius of Alexandria. But I do not see with what appearance of truth it can be said that the Arians falsely fastened on St. Dionysius this assertion concerning the Son of God, Since the Son is a thing made, He was not before He was made. Nor do I understand how this can be proved from the passage of Athanasius which the aforesaid Benedictines cite. For there (see number 168 of this Commentary) St. Athanasius confesses that it was written by Dionysius in the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God, since He is a thing made, was not before He was made.

[184] And since, as the same Athanasius confesses according to what was said above, is confirmed, and it is established as more probable that it should be held. Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor wrote not only this, but also that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, nothing is had from Athanasius against Basil, who asserts that a difference of essence between God the Father and the Son is constituted by St. Dionysius. Indeed, since as regards this the two holy Fathers agree, as appears, most closely, Dionysius, in their judgment, spoke somewhat rather crudely concerning the most holy Trinity in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, although meanwhile he thought of it orthodoxly, if anyone ever did, and clearly proved himself thoroughly orthodox by his later writings. The cause why he wrote thus to Ammonius and Euphranor was, I think, says Basil in the letter cited above, not depravity of opinion, but a vehement zeal for opposing Sabellius. Therefore, all these things having been weighed, in order at length to conclude this question treated so far in the present paragraph, it appears to me more probable, as I have already hinted, that Dionysius, by some formulas of speaking employed less cautiously in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, could deservedly seem to have fallen into error, and hence be denounced to the Roman See as guilty of violated faith. Yet I would not dare to affirm these things for certain, since the said letter, being now lost, is not at hand, whereas it would be needed in order that it might be judged whether the things which Dionysius uttered in it, erroneous in appearance, somewhat too harshly and incautiously, out of zeal for defending the truth against Sabellius, and not out of depravity of opinion, do not admit an easy and almost obvious explanation from what precedes and follows.

§ XVII. Whether Dionysius can deservedly be said to have prefigured the errors of the Arians.

Some have said that Dionysius prefigured the errors of the Arians, St. Dionysius, as we have shown in the preceding §, by employing some rather crude formulas of speaking concerning the most holy Trinity, gave the Pentapolitans a just cause, as appears more probable, for being denounced by them to the Roman Pontiff as guilty of violated faith. Our Saint, namely, as Athanasius confesses according to what was said above, had said that the Son of God is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine and the shipwright from the skiff: for since He is a thing made, He was not before He was made. Furthermore Arius and his followers, about fifty years having elapsed after the death of Dionysius, taught that the Son of God is a mere creature, and that there was a time when He was not; which impious doctrine against the second Person of the most holy Trinity differs very little, or rather nothing, from the doctrine which seems to be comprehended under the words which we have just transcribed here from Athanasius as inserted by Dionysius in the letter given to Ammonius and Euphranor. Since, therefore, the Saint gave the Pentapolitans a just cause for accusing him as one who in appearance asserted that the Son of God is a creature, and not undeservedly seemed, from the words which he employed, to have taught in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor almost the same thing as the Arians afterwards; since, I say, the matter stands thus concerning our Saint, another question arises here, namely whether Dionysius can deservedly be said to have prefigured the error of the Arians, by which they counted the second Person of the most holy Trinity among the creatures. There have been some, and among them St. Basil, and the Arians themselves, who asserted that St. Dionysius furnished the first seeds for the opinion of Arius concerning the most holy Trinity. Of St. Basil and his judgment on the writings of Dionysius I shall frame my discourse at length below. I now treat of the Arians, as having arisen before Basil, and at the same time inquire whether they deservedly made Dionysius the patron, or rather the prefigurer, of their impious heresy.

[186] but that the Saint did not do this is proved by an argument St. Athanasius, the successor of Dionysius in the see of Alexandria after some other intervening bishops, composed the sufficiently long Treatise which he inscribed On the Opinion of Dionysius to this end, to show that Dionysius thought against the Arian heresy, and was falsely traduced by the Arians as agreeing with them in doctrine. And Athanasius accomplished this so vigorously and so efficaciously that he demonstrated, clearer than midday light, to speak with the proverb, that Dionysius was most alien from the opinion of the Arians concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity, and thought with the Nicene synod, and, by various texts adduced from Dionysius's book on the Elenchus and Apologia, very opportunely beat back the impious attempt of the Arians, by which they obstinately wished to drag our Saint into the fellowship of their heretical doctrine. We, then, in order to show that Dionysius was not the prefigurer of the Arian heresy, shall follow Athanasius here, and gather up his footsteps as far as the matter requires. This holy writer, as you will easily gather from what was said above, does not deny that Dionysius wrote in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor anything at all favouring the Arians. But he contends that those things were not written by the Saint with the mind which the Arians supposed. And in order to prove this, at numbers 13 and 14 he turns against the Arians an argument which comes back almost to this. Whoever clears himself of some opinion as of a crime certainly shows beyond doubt, by that very clearing of himself, that he is alien from that opinion. Wherefore, since Dionysius, by publishing an Apology sent to the Roman Pontiff, cleared himself, just as from a crime, of that opinion by which, as he had been accused by certain Pentapolitans, he had asserted that the Son of God is a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father, by this very act he most certainly proved that he was alien from the said opinion.

[187] I transcribe here the very words of Athanasius, in order that the learned reader may be able more conveniently to pass judgment on the matter. which Athanasius also used, Since, he says in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, very often cited, number 13 and following, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, cleared himself concerning his letter (namely, the one written to Ammonius and Euphranor), it is plain that he was neither of the opinion which they (the Arians) ascribe to him, nor at all imbued with the depraved doctrine of Arius. And certainly it would suffice for the complete refutation of the Arians, and for demonstrating their calumny, that Dionysius cleared himself even of those things which they boast of: for he did not write in a spirit of contention, but for the sake of defending himself and removing suspicion (of depraved doctrine delivered by him concerning the Most Holy Trinity): and when he repels those accusations, what else does he do than lift every suspicion of the crime, and in this convict the Arians of being sycophants? But in order that they may be confounded the more from the things he wrote for the sake of defending himself, come, I will set before you his words, so that from this you may know that the Arians are men of depraved mind, and Dionysius alien from their errors. And first indeed he inscribed his letter Apology and Elenchus. What does that mean, except that he both convicts his detractors and defends his writings, showing that he did not write with the mind which Arius suspected; but, though he mentioned the things which were said of the Lord according to His humanity, that he was nevertheless not ignorant that He is the Word and Wisdom indivisible from the Father? Thus Athanasius, proving in other words indeed, yet by the same argument, that our Saint was most alien from the opinion of Arius; although meanwhile in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor he had uttered some words

which not undeservedly seemed to savour of pure and unadulterated Arianism.

[188] To this also bear the words which the said Athanasius utters at number 12 in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, very often cited. and which, some words of Athanasius which also bear on this having been recited, Does then Dionysius, he says, as the enemies of Christ (the Arians) boast, when he writes of the humanity of the Son and says that He is a thing made, indicate that He is one of mere men? Or because he said that the Word is not proper to the substance of the Father, did he think that He is consubstantial with us men? But in other letters he by no means wrote so, but it is conspicuous that in them he thinks rightly; in which letters indeed he in a manner cries out against the heretics (the Arians) in these words: I am not of your opinion, O enemies of God, nor were our writings an occasion of impiety to Arius: but when, on account of the Sabellians, in my letters to Ammonius and Euphranor I made mention of the husbandman and the vine, and of other sayings of this kind; that was said in order that, the human things of the Lord having been demonstrated, I might persuade them not to say that it was the Father who was made man. For as the husbandman is not the vine, so He who was in the body is not the Father, but the Word. And the Word, as He was in the vine, was called the vine on account of His bodily kinship with the branches, that is, with us. With this mind I wrote to Ammonius and Euphranor; but the other letters which I sent (to Dionysius, namely, the Roman bishop, for the sake of defending myself) I oppose to your impudence, so that hence my defence may be known to the wise, and also my right opinion in the faith of Christ. So Athanasius introduces Dionysius speaking, and at the same time, by no vain attempt, excuses the things which he uttered here less cautiously concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity, by the mind with which the Saint uttered them, and which becomes known from his later letters, or books on the Elenchus and Apologia written to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff.

[189] is shown to be what must hold, from Dionysius himself. For in these For in these very many things occur from which it becomes manifest that Dionysius was as alien as possible from the opinion of the Arians concerning the most holy Trinity. In order that the matter may become plain to everyone, I transcribe certain Fragments brought by Athanasius into his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius and chiefly bearing on this, with the words of St. Athanasius himself intermixed. First indeed this holy writer, at numbers 14 and 15 of the Treatise just cited again, shows that Dionysius did not think the Son of God not coeval with the Father, and speaks thus: And so (Dionysius of Alexandria), for the sake of clearing himself, in the first book, whose title is Elenchus and Apologia, certain things having been set down first, wrote thus word for word: For there never was when God was not Father. And in what follows he (Dionysius, namely) professes that Christ always was, and existed as the Word, Wisdom and Power. For God did not, having before been without these, afterwards beget the Son. Nor does the Son have being from Himself, but from the Father. And a few things interposed, he says again on the same matter: Since He is the splendour of the eternal light, He Himself also is altogether eternal. For light always existing, it is manifest that the splendour also always exists; for light is understood to be light by this very fact, that it shines: and it cannot be that light does not give light. For let us come again to examples. If there is a sun, there is also splendour, there is also day: but if none of these is, the sun is far from being present. And if the sun were eternal, the day also would never cease: but now (for the matter is not so), when the sun begins, the day also begins, and when it ceases, it ceases. But God is eternal light, which never began, never will cease: an eternal splendour therefore shines before Him and coexists, which is without beginning, and, begotten from eternity, shines forth before Him: and which is Wisdom itself, which says: I was that in which He rejoiced, and I was delighted every day before His face, at all times.

[190] in the books on the Elenchus and Apologia, that the Son of God with the Father And a little afterwards he (St. Dionysius) resumes on the same matter in these words: Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, light from light. For if He is begetter, there is also a Son; but if there is no Son, how and of whom can He be begetter? But both are, and always are. Then he adds these words: Since, therefore, God is light, Christ is splendour; and since He Himself is also Spirit, for God, it says, is Spirit, again fittingly Christ is called Vapour; for He is, it says, the Vapour of the power of God. And again he says: But the Son alone, who always coexists with the Father, and is filled with Him who is, He too is from the Father. So Athanasius, drawing together almost into one whatever Dionysius inserted into his books on the Elenchus and Apologia in order to profess and show that the Son of God is coeternal with the Father. The said Athanasius, weighing how clearly it is established from these that Dionysius was opposed to the Arians, who said of the Son of God, There was when He was not, presently subjoins to the words just recited: If these things had been said ambiguously, they would need an interpreter; but since he (Dionysius of Alexandria) has treated these things openly and often in his writings, let Arius indeed gnash his teeth, because he sees his heresy overturned by Dionysius, and let him hear, even against his will, these words of his: God was always Father; and the Son is not without cause called eternal; but because the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, and coexists with Him, as splendour with light. And let those who even slightly suspect that Dionysius thought with Arius lay aside this sinister opinion of him. What kinship, I pray, have they with one another, when Arius says: The Son was not before He was begotten, but there was once when He was not; while Dionysius on the contrary teaches: But God is eternal light, which never began, never will cease: an eternal splendour therefore shines before Him and coexists, which is without beginning, and, begotten from eternity, shines forth before Him. In this manner Athanasius presses the Arians, showing that Dionysius was utterly opposed to the opinion by which they asserted that the Son of God did not always coexist with the Father and was not coeternal with Him.

[191] And lest he should leave them any place of escape, is coeternal, in the way in which splendour is coeternal with the eternal light, he meets thus, at number 22, the objection which they could have contended drawn from the manner in which the Son is said by Dionysius to coexist with the Father: But lest any of the Arians should suspect that he (Dionysius of Alexandria) said that the Son so coexists with the Father that the names indeed cohere with one another, but the things are very far distant from one another, and that the Son did not always coexist with the Father; but that from the time when the Son began to be, from that time God was called Father, and thenceforth coexists with Him, as happens among men. But let him remember the things that were said above, and then he will recognize the right faith of Dionysius. For since he says, For there was not when God (see the words recited at number 189) was not Father; and again: But God (go again to number 189) is eternal light, which never begins, never will cease: an eternal splendour therefore shines before Him and coexists, which is without beginning, and, begotten from eternity, shines forth before Him: it was surely right that no one should suspect such things of him. The examples also of the spring and the river, of the root and the shoot, of the spirit and the vapour, cover with shame the enemies of Christ, who disseminate contrary things about him. There is no one still, as far as I think, who does not see from all these things that Dionysius beyond all doubt held that the Son of God always coexisted with the Father, and was accordingly coeternal with Him, and accordingly that the Arians did not draw from him what they said of the Son of God: There was once when He was not. And this is the first doctrine of the Arians which Dionysius, since from what has been said he most certainly did not hold it, cannot be said to have prefigured. Whether he likewise did not prefigure other doctrines of the Arians I now inquire.

[192] The Arians taught that the Son of God is altogether divided and separated from the Father, and accordingly not of the same nature with Him, but of a different one, or, which comes back to the same, proper by nature that He is alien from the Father according to substance, or not consubstantial with the Father. And in order to prove that Dionysius supported this impious doctrine of theirs, they argued thus, by the testimony of Athanasius, On the Opinion of Dionysius, number 16: When Dionysius says the Father, he does not name the Son; and conversely, when he says the Son, he does not mention the Father, but divides, removes and separates the Son from the Father; and to this argument, as the same St. Athanasius testifies in the place just cited, St. Dionysius himself answers the Pentapolitans, who had objected the same to him, in his second book on the Elenchus and Apologia in these words: Each of the names uttered by me can neither be separated nor divided from one another; I said the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I had already signified Him in the Father; I added the Son, and even if I had not first named the Father, He had nevertheless been comprehended in the name of the Son; I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I added both whence and through whom He proceeded. But they (the Pentapolitans, my accusers) do not know that neither can the Father, inasmuch as He is Father, be alienated from the Son, for that name is the origin of conjunction; nor the Son separated from the Father, for the word Father indicates something common. And in their hands is the Spirit, who can be separated neither from the one sending nor from the one bearing. How then should I, who use such names, think them separated from one another and altogether divided? And a few things interposed, says Athanasius, he adds these: Thus indeed we expand the indivisible Unity into the Trinity, and again contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into the Unity. So Dionysius refutes the Pentapolitans, who had asserted that the Son was altogether separated and divided by him from the Father; since he had already before likewise refuted, in his first book on the Elenchus and Apologia, their accusation in which they said that the Saint had said that the Son is counted among things made and is by no means consubstantial with the Father.

[193] and consubstantial, Of the words in which the Saint does this there, we have already transcribed a part here from Athanasius at number 158, so that it is not necessary to repeat it here again. I therefore transcribe the remaining part only, and that not entire, but partly, as it bears on my purpose. It runs thus: But the letter, as I said before, I do not have with me on account of the present condition of affairs; otherwise I would have sent you the very words which I then wrote, nay a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it, if ever I have the means. I remember, furthermore, that I gathered together very many similitudes from things akin to one another. For a plant, whether from seed

or from root, growing up, I said was other than that from which it sprouted, although they are altogether of the same nature; and that the river flowing from the spring takes another form and name; for neither is the spring called river nor the river spring; but that both exist, and the spring is as it were the father, and the river the water flowing from the spring. So Dionysius, contending chiefly from the similitudes of kindred or homogeneous things (see the words recited at number 158) which he employed in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, that he did not assert in it that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father; which word is employed here and elsewhere by Dionysius, as appears manifest from the similitudes which he uses, to signify a thing which is of the same genus and species with another; not, however, as it was afterwards employed by the council of Nicaea, to signify a thing which with another constitutes numerically the same substance. Nor ought this to seem absurd. For in this sense also the Son of God is certainly consubstantial with the Father, and the Saint, since he asserts an indivisible unity in the Trinity, admits the thing understood by that word by the Nicene synod. But let it suffice to have noted this here in passing. I go on to examine the mind of our Saint concerning the other doctrine of the Arians set out above.

[194] Athanasius, besides the words just transcribed here, he most expressly teaches against the Arians. transfers into his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius yet other words from Dionysius's first book on the Apology, less serviceable to my purpose and therefore omitted by me here, and then, having recited these words from Dionysius's third book on the Apology, Life was begotten from Life, as the river flowed from the spring, and a shining light was kindled from an unquenched light, he most sharply censures and harasses in this manner, at number 19, the Arians who assert that their impious doctrine is founded in Dionysius, from all the words which we have already transcribed in the present paragraph from Dionysius's books on the Apology: Having heard these things, who will not henceforth accuse of madness those who suspect that Dionysius thinks in the Arian manner? Truly he, by these arguments (of Dionysius) (which we have already set forth in this § from Athanasius), proceeding from truth itself, tramples down the whole heresy of Arius. For that saying, He was not before He was begotten, and, There was when He was not, he refutes by the word splendour (go to the words recited at number 189); and also by these words: His Father was never without Offspring. And that which they say, from things not existing, he refutes by saying that the Word is as a river from a spring, as a shoot from a root, a son from a parent, light from light, and life from life. And that they separate and divide the Word from God, this he condemns when he says that the Trinity, which can neither be divided nor diminished, is contracted into unity. And what they say, that the Son is alien from the substance of the Father, he openly rejects when he says that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Here indeed the impudence of impious men is exceedingly to be wondered at; for when Dionysius, whom they affirm to have thought the like of their doctrine, says that the Son is consubstantial, they nevertheless, not otherwise than gnats, buzz round about, as though the synod (the ecumenical Nicene) had not rightly committed to writing the word Consubstantial. For if they think Dionysius their friend, let them not deny the doctrine of a Man who thinks with them. But if they think that it was not rightly said, why do they boast of Dionysius, who says this very thing, as thinking with them? You are now persuaded, as far as I think, learned reader, that Dionysius is opposed no less to the Arians who assert that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father than to those who assert that He is not coeternal, so that Dionysius taught them neither of these assertions. Let us now consider whether the Saint favoured more another doctrine of theirs, by which they asserted that the Son of God is a thing made or a creature.

[195] Athanasius, after the words which I have already transcribed at number 178 of this Commentary, Moreover, that the Son of God was neither a created thing, and which, since they serve our purpose, are to be held as though inserted here, continues thus in his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, number 21: Let him who hears these things remember the divine oracle which says: Whithersoever the impious turns, he vanishes. For in whatever direction those impious men (the Arians, namely) turn daily, they vanish, finding not even in this (in asserting that the Son of God is a thing made) any means of winning Dionysius to themselves; since he openly teaches that the Son is neither a thing made nor created; and he carps at and fittingly refutes those who calumniated him as though he had said that God is maker, because they did not observe that he had before said that God is Father, in which the Son also is included. And by these words he declares that the Son is not of the number of things made, and that God is not the maker, but the Father of His own Word. And to some who unskilfully (or rather, as it is in the Greek, in bad faith) answered him that he had said that God was the maker of Christ, he employed various arguments for the sake of clearing himself. Saying that his words were not so to be reprehended; for he affirms that he used the name of maker on account of the flesh which the Word had assumed, certainly made. But if anyone should suspect that it was said of the Word, he ought to have heard it in that way too without zeal for contention; for as I do not think the Word to be a thing made, and I say that God is not His maker but His Father; if ever, discoursing of the Son, I should say in passing that God is His maker; even then the matter would not lack defence; for the wise Greeks call themselves the makers of their books, although the same are the fathers of their own books: and the divine Scripture calls us makers of the motions of the heart, when it calls us makers of the law and of judgment and of justice. Thus, from whatever side the matter is regarded, he well shows that the Son is neither a created nor a made thing, and that he is alien from the depraved doctrine of the Arians, by which, namely, they taught that the Son of God is a thing made or a creature; so that Dionysius favours this assertion of the Arians no more, or rather opposes it no less, than the two others already mentioned above, in one of which they asserted that the Son of God is not coeternal with the Father, in the other that He is not consubstantial.

[196] nor that He is called the Word only according to the mode of thinking Furthermore, two other assertions of the Arians still remain, likewise opposed to those which the Church proposes to be believed concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity. The Son of God is called in the sacred Scriptures the Word of God, and hence the Catholics inferred against the Arians that the Son of God is not foreign to the Father, as the Arians contended, but proper to and indivisible from the substance of the Father, as the word from the mind. The Arians, in order to break this argument of the Catholics, replied two things equally conflicting with the orthodox faith. The first was that the Son of God is called the Word not according to nature but only according to the mode of thinking; and that He is not the true Son of God, but is so called only by adoption; and the other, that that which is the Word in God is one thing, and that which is called the Word in Scripture when it speaks of the Son of God is another. Let us now consider whether our Saint in any way favours either of these tenets of the Arians, or whether he agrees with the Arians in them. I begin, as the order of matters requires, from the first. But since, says Athanasius in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, very often cited, number 23, Arius, in addition to his other evils, patched together for himself this opinion also, as though from a dunghill, and added these things: The Word is not proper to the Father, but the Word in God is another: but this Lord is indeed foreign and alien from the substance of the Father, and is called the Word only according to the mode of thinking, and is not according to nature, and the true Son of God; but He also is called Son by adoption, as being a creature. And while he says these things, he boasts among those who are ignorant of the truth of the matter, as though Dionysius thought with him in this: do you yourself, I pray, see what was the faith of Dionysius concerning these things, and with what force he attacks those errors of Arius.

[197] So Athanasius prefaces concerning the first assertion of the Arians concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity, is called the Word, set out by us above; and in order to show that Dionysius of Alexandria is contrary to the errors involved in it, he transcribes two altogether notable texts, by which the Saint most openly opposes them, from his first and second books on the Elenchus and Apologia. These, however long, I likewise transcribe here, so that it may again be plain from the Saint's own words how little he favours here too the impious doctrine of the Arians against the most holy Trinity, and on how weak a foundation, accordingly, those rest who affirm that the holy Man prefigured the errors of the Arians. It was said, he says in Athanasius in the place just cited, above that God is the spring of all good things; and the Son was called the river flowing from Him; for the word is the emanation of the mind, and (to speak in human fashion) is sent forth from the heart through the mouth. But the mind which leaps forth through the tongue is different from the word which exists in the heart; for the latter, after it has sent forth the former, remains, and is such as it was before; but the former, sent forth, flies away and is borne about in every direction; and so each is in the other, although it is different from the other; and they are one, though they are two. For so the Father and the Son are one, and it has been proved that they are in each other. So Dionysius in the first of the two texts just cited; and in the second he speaks in a manner not much unlike.

[198] It runs thus: As .. our mind belches forth a word from itself, he asserted; but to the Arians as the Prophet says: My heart hath uttered a good word: and each is other than the other, occupying a proper place distinct from the other, since the one abides and moves in the heart, the other in the tongue and mouth: yet the one does not stand apart from the other, nor are they deprived of each other: neither is the mind without the word, nor the word without the mind: but the mind makes the word and appears in it, and the word exhibits the mind in which it was made: and the mind is as it were the immanent word, and the word as it were the mind leaping forth: the mind passes into the word, the word insinuates the mind into the hearers standing round: and so the mind through the word is placed in the souls of the hearers, and enters together with the word. And the mind indeed is as it were the father of the word, existing in itself: and the word as it were the son of the mind, not indeed before it, but neither can it have been made outside it, but it exists with it, and has sprouted from it. In the same way also that greatest Father, and that universal mind, has before all things the Son, the Word, His interpreter and messenger. Thus far the words of Dionysius; and these having been recited, Athanasius, in the Treatise just cited again, number 24, at once subjoins:

These things (the words of Dionysius just transcribed here) Arius either never heard, or, if he heard them, the unlearned man did not understand them: for if he had understood them, he would not have spread abroad such great lies about the bishop (Dionysius of Alexandria); rather he would have assailed him with abuse, as he does us, on account of his ingrained hatred of the truth. For since he is an enemy of Christ, he will most gladly persecute those who savour the things that are Christ's, as the Lord Himself foretold: If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also.

[199] In this manner Athanasius here again most sharply censures Arius and his followers for impudently asserting that Dionysius, who teaches the things contained in the words just recited, thought the same as they; he is altogether contrary to those affirming this, and, a few things having been interposed which I omit here for brevity's sake, he continues thus: For what has the faith of Dionysius even near to the malignity of Arius? Does not Arius say that the Word is Word only according to the mode of thinking, but Dionysius that the Word of God is so truly and by His nature? The one says that the Word is foreign to the Father: the other teaches that He is proper to, and indivisible from, the substance of the Father, as the word from the mind and the river from the spring. If anyone, then, shall be able to divide and alienate the word from the mind, or to separate the river from the spring and cut them apart as though by a wall built between; or shall dare to say that the river is of a different substance from the spring, and to show water different from it; or to cut splendour off from light, and to affirm that the splendour is of an alien substance and does not come forth from the light, let him rave with Arius; for such a man will no longer seem to have even a human mind. But if nature itself knows these things to be indivisible, and their offspring is proper to them; let no one then henceforth think with Arius, or dare to calumniate Dionysius; but rather let him admire from this both the perspicuity of his discourse and his right faith. So Athanasius, from the relations of the spring to the river and of the mind to the word, which Dionysius applies in the two texts just transcribed here to God the Father and the Son, rightly concluding that the Saint is contrary to the Arians who assert that the Son of God is called the Word only according to the mode of thinking.

[200] [as also to those saying that that which is the Word in God is one thing, and that of which the Scriptures speak another.] As regards now the other assertion of the Arians mentioned above, in which they said, namely, that that which is the Word in God is one thing, and that which the sacred Scripture records when speaking of the Son of God is another, Dionysius is proved from his books on the Elenchus and Apologia to be contrary to this erroneous doctrine no less than to the one immediately preceding. And as regards, says Athanasius at number 25 in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, very often cited, that madness of Arius by which he says that that which is the Word in God is one thing, and that of which John spoke: In the beginning was the Word, another; and that the wisdom proper in God is one thing, and that which the Apostle indicates by these words another: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; Dionysius attacks this with the utmost force, and vigorously pursues that depraved opinion: See, I pray, in what manner he speaks of these matters in the second book (on the Elenchus, namely, and Apologia): In the beginning was the Word; but that was not a word which brought forth the Word; for the Word was with God: the Lord is Wisdom; He therefore was not wisdom who produced Wisdom; for, I was, it says, in whom He delighted. Christ is Truth; but, it says, Blessed be the God of truth. There at once he overturns Sabellius and Arius, and declares both heresies of equal impiety: for neither is the Word the father of the Word, nor is that made which proceeds from the Father, but it is the proper offspring of His substance. And again the Word proceeding is not the Father: nor is that Word one of many, but He alone is the Son of the Father, true and genuine by nature, who both now exists in Him and eternally, and is from Him indivisibly. So also the Lord is Wisdom and Truth, and is not second from another wisdom; but He alone is the one through whom the Father founded all things, and in Him constituted the manifold substances of things; through whom also He becomes known to whom He will; in Him likewise He exercises providence over all things, does all things. For Dionysius too acknowledged this one only Word of God. This is the faith of Dionysius. Thus Athanasius, clearly demonstrating from the very words of Dionysius that he is likewise opposed to the latter error of the Arians, of which we treat here.

§ XVIII. It is shown by still other reasons that Dionysius did not prefigure the errors of the Arians.

[Dionysius is shown by another argument to be contrary to the errors of the Arians,] Our Saint is contrary to all the errors of the Arians concerning the most holy Trinity, as you will gather from what we disputed in the preceding §, and accordingly he cannot deservedly be said to have prefigured them. But in order that it may be still more clearly plain that Dionysius was alien from the errors of Arius, I show this besides by this other argument, which is also comprehended in the words recited from Athanasius at number 166. He certainly is to be judged alien from the errors of Arius who, never convicted of impiety by the Fathers, has always had a celebrated memory of himself in the Church. For if the Fathers, as soon as the Arian heresy arose, having at once seized their spiritual arms, rose up against it, and, having deposed Arius, the author of the impiety, cut him off from the body of the Church; they would certainly have punished Dionysius of Alexandria with the same penalty as him, if he had defended the same errors as Arius. Now since Dionysius was nowhere convicted of impiety by the Fathers, indeed since he was declared free of the errors imputed to him by the Pentapolitans, which were the same as the errors of Arius which we discussed above, by Dionysius the Roman Pontiff and by the synod gathered by him at Rome, or at least (see what was said at number 166) was held orthodox when he had rendered an account of his faith, it seems altogether certain that the Saint was most alien from the errors of Arius. But if you say that Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor asserted that the Son of God is a thing made, and a work alien from the Father according to substance, and that these assertions contain pure and unadulterated Arian venom; to the things we have already brought forward above, fitted to solve this difficulty, I add this answer.

[202] Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor (go to what we disputed in the preceding §) and can be said of the Son of God probably did indeed commit to paper some words on account of which, as seeming to embrace the errors afterwards condemned in Arius, he was denounced by the Pentapolitans to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff as guilty of violated faith; but in the said letter, from a vehement zeal for refuting Sabellius, he uttered more than he indeed wished to be understood; being intent almost solely on this, namely to crush vigorously the Sabellian errors, and not taking sufficiently anxious care that he should not bring forward anything which, while proving indeed the distinction of the Persons in the most holy Trinity, at the same time destroyed the unity of essence. Hence it comes about that from the said letter no safe judgment can be passed on the mind of Dionysius concerning the unity of essence of the divine Persons, and that, in order to gather it, recourse must therefore be had to the other letters written by him afterwards, in which he both explained in an orthodox sense the things which he had written somewhat rather crudely in the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, and so expressly professed that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father that he ought to seem to fair judges of affairs rather to have condemned the Arian heresy beforehand than to have prefigured it. Moreover Dionysius, when he asserted in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine and the shipwright from the skiff, regarded the Son of God by reason of the humanity assumed, not by reason of the divinity or the divine hypostasis. And in this sense the Son of God is truly a work and a thing made, not proper by nature, but alien from the Father according to substance, as the husbandman is from the vine and the shipwright from the skiff. Nor is there ground for you to say that Dionysius, in order to reconcile a Catholic sense to these assertions of his, does not have recourse to that; for I have already given at number 175 the reason why the Saint does not do so, and it, as far as I think, satisfies this difficulty.

[203] regarded according to the human nature, However that may be, certainly Athanasius judged that those assertions of Dionysius are to be explained in the sense already assigned. For this holy writer, on these words of Christ in John, chapter 15, verse 1, I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman, writes thus in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, number 10: And that these very things (the words of sacred Scripture just recited) were said of the humanity of the Saviour, may be observed from this, that the husbandman is alien from the vine as regards substance; but the branches are of the same substance and kind as the vine, and undivided from it, for the branches and the vine sprout from one and the same origin. And He Himself, says the Lord, is the vine, we the branches. If, therefore, the Son is consubstantial with us, and has the same origin as we, let Him in this respect be alien from the Father according to substance, in the way in which the vine is from the husbandman: but if the Son is something other than that which we are, and He indeed is the Word of the Father, while we are procreated from the earth and are the descendants of Adam, that saying ought not to be referred to the Deity of the Word but to His human coming: since the Saviour says thus: I am the vine, you the branches, and the Father the husbandman. For we, as regards the body, are of the same kind as the Lord; therefore He Himself said: I will declare thy name to my brethren. And as the branches are consubstantial with the vine and come forth from it; so we too, having bodies of the same kind as the body of the Lord, receive of His fullness, and it is to us a root for resurrection and salvation. And the Father was called the husbandman: for He cultivated the vine, which is the humanity of the Saviour, through the Word; He likewise through the Word prepared for us the way to the kingdom, and no one comes to the Lord unless the Father draws him to Him.

[204] to have spoken. So Athanasius, showing that the aforementioned words of sacred Scripture are referred to Christ considered according to the human nature, and hence then, some things having been interposed, in a manner concluding that the comparisons of Dionysius concerning the husbandman and the vine, the shipbuilder and the skiff, are likewise referred by the Saint, in the letter to Ammonius, where he writes of the humanity of the Son, to the Son of God considered according to the human nature. Does then Dionysius, he says, as the enemies of Christ boast, when he writes of the humanity of the Son and says that He is a thing made, indicate that He is one of mere men? Or because he said that the Word is not proper to the substance of the Father, did he think that He is to us

men consubstantial? And after a few things he introduces Dionysius speaking, and attributes to him the words already recited at number 188, in which the Saint hints that he spoke not of the divine but of the human nature of Christ when he asserted that the Son of God is alien from the Father in the way in which the vine is alien from the husbandman and the skiff from the shipbuilder. And indeed that these comparisons of the vine and the husbandman, of the skiff and the shipbuilder, are referred by Dionysius, in the letter very often mentioned, to the Person of the Son not regarded in itself, but only by reason of the humanity assumed, appears from this, that in it he brings forward almost solely (see the words recited at number 148) the things which pertain to the human nature of Christ. Add that the aforesaid comparisons are taken from sacred Scripture, and in it, as we have just shown from Athanasius, are taken of the Son of God considered according to the human nature; from which it becomes likely that they were taken by Dionysius in the same sense likewise. But if, further, you still contend that the Son of God, even not considered according to the human nature, was said by Dionysius to be alien from the Father in the letter which he wrote to Ammonius and Euphranor, and accordingly that the aforementioned comparisons were not taken by the Saint in the sense just alleged, I answer that, even this being admitted, it does not follow that Dionysius prefigured the errors of the Arians.

[205] For after writing the letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, On the hypothesis, nevertheless, that this is not so, in which on the hypothesis he wrote that the Son of God, even not considered according to the human nature, is alien from the Father according to substance, he composed his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, and in them taught (go to number 193 of this Commentary) that the Son of God is not alien from the Father according to substance, but consubstantial with the Father, and afterwards constantly retained this doctrine up to the last breath of his life. Wherefore, since he who writes two different writings, in one of which he denies and in the other affirms one and the same thing, is to be judged to follow that part of the opposite assertions which his last writing reveals, St. Dionysius, even on the hypothesis which we have mentioned, is to be judged to have thought that the Son of God is not alien from the Father according to substance, since he most openly taught and publicly professed this in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, which he wrote later. Dionysius, then, even granted that he was deservedly accused of error by the Pentapolitans, and that in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor he asserted that the Son of God, even not considered according to the human nature, is alien from the Father according to substance; Dionysius, I say, even this being granted, cannot deservedly be said to have prefigured the errors of the Arians, since he undoubtedly held the doctrine opposed to them, and that to the end of his life. Hence it also follows that the Arians, even on the hypothesis made, undeservedly boasted of Dionysius as the assertor of their doctrines concerning the most holy Trinity.

[206] If, says Athanasius of the Arians in the Treatise just cited, yet not on that account can the Saint deservedly number 24, the patrons of impiety think that Dionysius thinks with them, let them write the same things as he, let them profess the same things; let them write those examples, namely of the vineyard and the husbandman, of the skiff and the shipwright; and together let them confess the things which he himself (Dionysius of Alexandria) delivered for the sake of defending consubstantiality: likewise the sentence in which he says that the Son is from the substance of the Father, and also His eternity, the kinship of the mind with the Word, of the spring with the river, and the rest; so that they may know, even from the very discrepancy of the matters, how he said those former things (of the vineyard, namely, and the husbandman, of the skiff and the shipwright) by economy; but these (concerning the consubstantiality of the Word, namely, its eternity, etc.) as the reason of pious faith requires. By which words Athanasius concedes to the Arians that they may freely cite in their favour those comparisons of Dionysius concerning the vine and the husbandman, the skiff and the shipwright, provided they at the same time admit consubstantiality, eternity and the other things which the Saint attributes to the divine Word in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia. Athanasius saw, namely, that whatever at length was the doctrine boasted of by the Arians as consequent from the said comparisons, it was most certainly crushed by the assertions of Dionysius concerning the consubstantiality and eternity of the Word, and that these, as contained in the later writings of the Saint, reveal his genuine faith concerning the most holy Trinity, and accordingly that no protection accrues to the errors of the Arians from the comparisons adduced of the skiff and the shipwright, of the vineyard and the husbandman. It therefore seems to follow also from the words of Athanasius just recited that, granted even, which nevertheless ought not to be admitted on account of what was said before, that St. Dionysius, whether only apparently, which is more probable, or in reality, fell in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor into those very errors, or almost those very errors, which were afterwards the chief ones of the Arians, he could nevertheless not deservedly be boasted of by the Arians as their author, since, namely, as I have already said, he afterwards held a doctrine altogether opposed to the errors of the Arians, and most openly professed the consubstantiality of the divine Word.

[207] be said to have prefigured the errors Hence the said Athanasius, in his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, most justly affirms more than once that Dionysius suffers calumny from the Arians, when they made him the patron of their heresy, and asserted that their doctrines concerning the most holy Trinity were founded in the writings of the holy Man. For the rest, in order to put an end to this discussion, in which I have inquired whether Dionysius prefigured the errors of the Arians, I add besides to the reasons so far brought forward the judgment of the learned. By this, before the ecumenical Nicene synod nothing occurs in Ecclesiastical History which militates more efficaciously for asserting the consubstantiality of the divine Word, which whoever admits most certainly rejects the errors of the Arians concerning the Most Holy Trinity, than what befell between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius the Roman Pontiff on the occasion of the Sabellian heresy. And why does this opinion sit with them? Certainly for no other reason than that on the occasion of the said heresy Dionysius of Rome, by a published writing, showed that the followers of the Sabellian heresy were of equal impiety with those who asserted that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, and established three Persons in the most holy Trinity distinct in Deity; and Dionysius of Alexandria, having understood from Dionysius of Rome the accusation that was being brought against him, published for the sake of clearing himself four books on the Elenchus and Apologia, and in them most openly professed the consubstantiality of the divine Word.

[208] of the Arians. Sandius, a heretic of the sixteenth century, who wished to renew the heresy of the Arians, found, in order to break the authority of Dionysius asserting the consubstantiality of the Word, absolutely nothing else but a miserable subterfuge, a most certain indication of the falsity which he defends. He says, namely, that the books of Dionysius written on the Elenchus and Apologia are a supposititious work, fastened on Dionysius of Alexandria by those who wished to exalt the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But Sandius has absolutely nothing to oppose to the authority of Athanasius, Eusebius and Basil, who ascribe the said books to our Saint, so that beyond all doubt he is not to be listened to here. A great distinction, therefore, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, must be made between the Arians and the Pentapolitans, of whom we have already treated above. The latter had seen only the letter of Dionysius to Ammonius and Euphranor, and accordingly, since the Saint had employed in it some rather crude formulas of speaking about the Son of God, they seem, as we have said, deservedly to have been able to accuse him of error before the Roman Pontiff; but the Arians had read not only that letter of Dionysius but also his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, and accordingly, since in these the Saint sets out his mind more clearly and most openly professes a doctrine altogether opposed to the errors of the Arians, they undeservedly boasted of him as the patron of their doctrines. Moreover, it came about not by the fault of Dionysius but by their own malice that they fell into the errors which they taught, and so the Saint cannot be said to have prefigured them.

§ XIX. Three assertions of St. Basil concerning Dionysius of Alexandria, and what is to be thought of the second of them.

[Gennadius, who asserts that Dionysius was the fountain of Arius, perhaps this assertion] Although Dionysius spoke somewhat rather crudely in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, he cannot on that account, as we have shown in the preceding §, deservedly be said to have prefigured the errors of the Arians. But this same opinion, as I have already advised above, did not always prevail with all. For first Gennadius, presbyter of Marseilles, who flourished as the fifth century was growing old, in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas has thus: Let us believe nothing created or serving in the Trinity, as Dionysius, the fountain of Arius, would have it. By which words that writer traduces our Saint as the author and coryphaeus of the errors of the Arians concerning the most holy Trinity. But Gennadius is not of such great authority that we should give credit to him rather than to Athanasius, who, as we have already shown, showed in a Treatise expressly written to this end that Dionysius was alien from the errors of the Arians. Moreover Gennadius, when he wrote these things, had perhaps not read the books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia, as neither the Apology for the opinion of Dionysius against the Arians written by Athanasius; which last appears to me certainly sufficiently likely for this reason, that otherwise, moved by the authority of so great a Man as Athanasius was, he seems likely to have passed a fairer judgment on Dionysius. However that may be, I for my part do not agree with Gennadius, who makes Dionysius the fountain and author of the Arian heresy, on account of the things which we have discussed in the two preceding paragraphs, and which show that Dionysius cannot deservedly be said to have prefigured the errors of the Arians. But, you will say, the Arians, because they asserted the Son of God unlike the Father, were also called, from the Greek word ἀνομοίος, in Latin dissimilis, ἀνομοῖοι, or the unlike, whence their heresy also received the name of Anomoean; and Basil, in the ninth letter, otherwise the forty-first, written to Maximus the Philosopher, most openly teaches that Dionysius (see the words transcribed here in the following number) first cast among men the seeds of the Anomoean heresy, so that this holy father likewise makes Dionysius the fountain of the Arian heresy, and accordingly Gennadius, who flourished after Basil, perhaps moved solely by his authority, committed to writing the words just recited, in which he calls Dionysius the fountain of Arius.

[210] he drew from Basil: his censure of the Saint, which here I answer: it is not unlike the truth that Gennadius learned from Basil what he pronounces of Dionysius in the words transcribed in the preceding number. As regards Basil's censure, imputing the origin of the Arian heresy to Dionysius, this, which I already before partly transcribed, namely at number 183, I now transcribe entire, so that the studious reader may more conveniently consider what should be established here, and whether the judgment which others have passed on it, and which we are about to pass, is fair. The entire context of the words, then, in which Basil expresses the matter in the said letter runs thus: For the rest, the writings of Dionysius which you ask for came to us indeed, and very many of them;

but the books are not at hand, and therefore we have not sent them. But our opinion is this: we do not admire all the things of this Man; indeed there are things which we even altogether disapprove. For of that impiety which now makes a din all about, I mean the Anomoean, he is, as far at least as we know, nearly the first who furnished the seeds to men. But the cause, I think, is not depravity of opinion, but a vehement zeal for opposing Sabellius. Him therefore I am wont to compare to a cultivator of trees straightening a young plant that has been bent; then, by pulling it back immoderately, straying from the middle and drawing the plant to the contrary side. Something of this kind we find befell this Man also. For when he vehemently opposed the impiety of the Libyan (Sabellius, a native of Libya), he did not understand that by excessive zeal for contending he was slipping into the contrary evil. And whereas it would have sufficed him to demonstrate that the Father and the Son are not the same in subject, and to hold this as the chief point against the blasphemer (Sabellius); in order to have a victory altogether manifest and overflowing, he established not only an otherness of hypostases, but also a difference of essence, and a gradation of power and diversity of glory.

[211] transcribed here, comprises chiefly three assertions. Wherefore it came about from this that he exchanged indeed evil for evil, and strayed from right doctrine. Hence also he is not consistent with himself in his writings, now removing the consubstantial on account of him who used this word wrongly for destroying the hypostases; now admitting it in those things which he wrote for the sake of defence to his namesake (Dionysius, namely, the Roman Pontiff). Moreover, concerning the Spirit he uttered words by no means worthy of the Spirit, separating Him from the adored deity, and numbering Him among the lower things together with the created and ministering nature. Such, then, is that Man. Thus far Basil, affirming chiefly three things of Dionysius; and of these the first indeed is that by the holy Man not only a diversity of Persons but also of essence was constituted in the most holy Trinity, and so the first seeds of the Anomoean, or Arian, heresy were cast; the second, that not always the same doctrine was delivered in his writings, the word consubstantial being now admitted, now rejected; and the third finally, that the Holy Spirit, deity being denied Him, is counted among things made or created. It will help to discuss these three assertions of Basil concerning Dionysius a little more accurately. I begin here from the first, which chiefly pertains to this place.

[212] Baronius affirms that Basil spoke somewhat freely of Dionysius in these; Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 263, number 43 and following, writing on Basil's opinion of Dionysius, regarded as a whole, affirms that St. Basil seems to have spoken somewhat freely of Dionysius; and in order to excuse Basil, he says that he, when he was writing the aforementioned letter to Maximus the philosopher, had not ascertained the books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia written to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, as neither the Treatise composed by Athanasius on the opinion of Dionysius against the Arians. That this Treatise of Athanasius was not yet known to St. Basil at that time is easily admitted by the learned, and the said Baronius also rightly proves this in the place cited from the fact that Basil, who was accustomed to regard and revere most highly Athanasius himself and what had been written by him, nevertheless, when about to give his opinion of Dionysius, made absolutely no mention of Athanasius, which the nature of the argument nevertheless required, nor touched even by a word the accusation brought against St. Dionysius by the Pentapolitans before Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, which nevertheless he would beyond doubt have had clearly perceived from the cited Treatise of Athanasius, if only he had seen it. And thus indeed it is most probable that the said Treatise of Athanasius did not light Basil's way at the time when he wrote the aforesaid letter to Maximus the philosopher. But is the same also to be affirmed of the apologetic books of Dionysius written to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff?

[213] Basil himself prefaces the opinion which he passed on Dionysius in the words just recited but since Basil, speaking thus, the apologetic books of Dionysius, whatever thus at the beginning: For the rest, the writings of Dionysius which you ask for came to us indeed, and very many of them; but the books are not at hand, and therefore we have not sent them. By which words, says Baronius, Basil seems to affirm that at the time when he was writing those things he did not yet have in hand the apologetic books of Dionysius written to the Roman Pontiff. But, Tillemont hints in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 282, although Basil in his letter to Maximus the philosopher passes a very unfavourable judgment on Dionysius, it nevertheless cannot be drawn from it that Basil, at the time when he composed it, had not yet read the apology given by Dionysius to the Roman Pontiff, since this is clearly cited in the said letter of Basil itself; namely in these words, already transcribed above: Hence also he (Dionysius of Alexandria) is not consistent with himself in his writings, now removing the consubstantial on account of him who used this word wrongly for destroying the hypostases; now admitting it in those things which he wrote for the sake of defence to his namesake (Dionysius, namely, the Roman Pontiff). These things Tillemont, as I have said, insinuates in the place cited. But must one certainly agree with this writer against Baronius? I think it sufficiently certain that what Baronius draws from the aforesaid letter of Basil cannot be drawn from it. For the words recited at the beginning of this number, from which it would be drawn, can be explained in such a way that by them Basil, who had then withdrawn into the desert, solely signifies to Maximus the philosopher that he had not yet received the Works of Dionysius, which he had ordered copyists or scribes placed farther away to write out for him, to be sent to Maximus the philosopher; and the said words being understood in this manner, as they certainly can be understood, by what reasoning, I ask, will you conclude from them that Basil, at the time when he was writing the letter often mentioned, had not yet read the apologetic books of Dionysius? Certainly Basil could have read these before he entered the desert, before either Maximus the philosopher asked that they be transmitted to him or he himself thought of making that transmission.

[214] It cannot, then, be drawn from the aforesaid words of Basil what it seemed to Baronius could be drawn from them. But although this cannot certainly be concluded from the said words, you would not on that account rightly conclude may meanwhile be opposed to the contrary, that Basil already at the time when he was writing the letter to Maximus the philosopher, very often mentioned already, had in hand the apologetic books of Dionysius written to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, or had perceived exactly the doctrine treated in them. For although, as Tillemont rightly observes, the Apology given by Dionysius of Alexandria for the sake of clearing himself to the Roman Pontiff his namesake is cited by Basil in the said letter, it can be said that Basil is to be understood not of the four books which Dionysius wrote under the name of Elenchus and Apologia to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of clearing himself, but of the letter which, as we have shown at number 158, he transmitted to the Pontiff for the same end before these four books. And if Basil is to be so understood, it cannot certainly be concluded, from his citing Dionysius's apology in his letter to Maximus the philosopher, that he had already, at the time when he was writing to Maximus, read the four books written by Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia. I confess, the matter is so: and indeed Basil, when he cites Dionysius's Apology in the letter to Maximus, can without doubt be understood of the letter alone which the latter wrote before the four books on the Elenchus and Apologia, provided only that in the edition of Basil which Baronius used, the passage of the letter to Maximus in which Basil cites Dionysius's Apology has been accurately turned from the Greek tongue into Latin.

[215] can be, to have cited For this passage in Baronius, at the year cited above, runs thus concerning Dionysius: It came about that he was found various and inconstant in his writings; and indeed he now removes τὸ ὁμοούσιον, the coessential, through those things which he used less rightly in the right constitution τῶν ὑποστάσεων, namely of the persons; now on the contrary he admits it, when he answers Dionysius of the same name, namely the Roman Pontiff. Which words contain absolutely nothing to prevent these latter, now on the contrary he (Dionysius) admits (τὸ ὁμοούσιον, the coessential), when he answers Dionysius of the same name, by which Basil cites Dionysius's Apology, from being understood of the letter alone which he wrote before the four books on the Elenchus and Apologia, especially since in this Dionysius, as is clear from number 158, admits τὸ ὁμοούσιον, the coessential or consubstantial. But the translation made of the aforesaid passage of the letter to Maximus from the Greek idiom into Latin does not seem accurate. For in the Greek-Latin edition of the Works of St. Basil which I use, prepared in the year 1730 by the Benedictine monks, it is expressed in Greek in this manner: Ταὺτητοι καὶ παντοδαπός ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς συγγράμμασιν, νῦν μὲν ἀναιρῶν τὸ ὁμοούσιον διὰ τον ἐπ᾽ ἁθετήσει τῶν ὑποστάσεων κακῶς ἀυτῷ κεχρημένον· νῦν δὲ προσιέμενος ἐν οἷς ἀπολογεῖται πρὸς τὸν ὁμώνυμον. And to this Greek text, to which the said Benedictines assign absolutely no variant reading, taken word for word, this Latin version, which differs not a little from the one just given and used by Baronius, corresponds exactly: Hence also he is various or inconstant in his writings, now removing the word Consubstantial on account of him who used it wrongly for destroying the hypostases or persons; now admitting it in those in which he writes for the sake of clearing himself to his homonym or namesake. Which words cannot be taken in such a way that Basil treats of the letter alone written by Dionysius before the four books of the Elenchus and Apologia. For these latter words, now admitting it in which, or in those in which he writes for the sake of clearing himself to his homonym or namesake, by which Dionysius's Apology is cited by Basil, contain in themselves, or at least have understood, the pronoun those, which, as will be plain to one who considers it, must be referred to the preceding substantive writings, and so makes this sense: Now admitting it in those writings in which he writes for the sake of clearing himself to his homonym or namesake.

[216] Wherefore, since the substantive writings, or rather the pronoun supplying the place of this substantive, [is proved, he is wrongly excused by Baronius on the ground that he had not read them.] by which Dionysius's apology is here cited by Basil, is expressed in the plural number, Basil, citing Dionysius's apology, cannot be understood of the letter alone which the latter wrote before the four books of the Elenchus and Apologia. He must therefore be understood either of the four books of the Elenchus and Apologia written by Dionysius to the Roman Pontiff, or of these together with the letter which Dionysius likewise gave to the Roman Pontiff before them. The Benedictines rendered the Greek text transcribed here in the preceding number into Latin thus: Hence also he is not consistent with himself in his writings, now removing the consubstantial on account of him who used this word wrongly for destroying the hypostases; now admitting it in those things which he wrote for the sake of defence to his namesake. And this version, according to which there are cited by Basil less clearly

the four books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia, differs somewhat from the version which we have just given; but ours, as will be plain to one who considers it, is more conformable to the Greek text, and therefore one must stand by it, so that Basil, in his letter to Maximus cited above, cites the four books of Dionysius written on the Elenchus and Apologia, and accordingly Baronius wrongly excuses the rather free manner of speaking of Dionysius which Basil held in the letter to Maximus on the ground that Basil, at the time when he was writing that letter, had not yet read the four books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia. Nor is there reason why it should appear less credible that Basil, even having seen and read these books, spoke rather freely of Dionysius in the said letter. For already at the time when he was writing to Maximus the philosopher, that holy writer, as Baronius confesses, had seen the letter written by Dionysius to the Roman Pontiff before the four books on the Elenchus and Apologia; and although in this the Saint (see number 158 of this Commentary) most openly confesses that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father, and accordingly delivers a doctrine diametrically opposed to the chief error of the Arians, Basil nevertheless most freely traduces him in his very often cited letter to Maximus as one who furnished men the first seeds of the Anomoean, or Arian, heresy, as is plain from what we have already discussed.

[217] There is no reason, then, why it should be little or less credible [It appears probable that Basil afterwards, the opinion which he had before passed on Dionysius,] that Basil, even having read the books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia, pronounced so unfavourable an opinion of him, as we have already seen. For Basil could not easily be called away by the later writings of Dionysius from the unfavourable opinion which he had conceived of the holy Man from the reading of his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. It would have been otherwise, as far as I think, if Basil, writing to Maximus, had had clearly perceived the Treatise which Athanasius wrote on the opinion of Dionysius, and which we have already cited more than once; for since he made the greatest account of Athanasius and his writings, it does not seem to be doubted that Basil, moved by the arguments of the said Treatise, in which Athanasius shows Dionysius free from the errors of the Arians, would have gone over hands and feet to the opinion of Athanasius concerning Dionysius; so that Baronius, in the place cited above, rightly affirms that Basil would have spoken otherwise of Dionysius if he had had clearly perceived the Treatise which Athanasius wrote for defending him, although meanwhile he could not be moved to change the opinion he had conceived of Dionysius by the books of this Saint himself written on the Elenchus and Apologia. When I say this, understand it said of Basil at the time when he was writing to Maximus. For indeed it is not altogether unlike the truth that he afterwards changed his opinion concerning Dionysius. St. Basil, says Tillemont in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 282, was not yet, as appears from the tenor of this letter (written to Maximus), a bishop, when he spoke thus of Dionysius (in the letter to Maximus), and was perhaps still quite young. He may easily have changed his opinion afterwards. Certainly we see him (Basil) twice attribute to him (Dionysius of Alexandria) the title of the Great in his first canonical epistle (this, already mentioned by us and to be mentioned again afterwards, is inscribed to Amphilochius), even at a time when he cannot approve even his opinion on the baptism of the Montanists. He also cites him for the deity of the Holy Spirit, adding nevertheless that there is reason why one should wonder at this. The texts which he reports seem sufficient to prove the purity of the faith of Dionysius on this head, on which Basil had accused him of error. So Tillemont, and in my judgment at least sufficiently probably.

[218] changed his opinion, although the Benedictines contend the contrary. The Benedictines nevertheless, dissenting here from Tillemont, write thus in the Notes which they have attached to the letter to Maximus the philosopher, already very often cited: In vain would anyone conjecture with Tillemont that Basil changed his opinion and recanted what he had said as a younger man, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29, where he brings forward a most excellent testimony of Dionysius concerning the Trinity. In vain, I say, would this be thought an indication of a changed opinion. For when he cites that testimony, he says that it is παράδοξον ἀκοῦσαι, wonderful to hear. Which is an argument that he did not favour Dionysius more even then. Thus the said Benedictines against Tillemont. But I do not see by what reasoning they argue with sufficient certainty, from the fact that Basil, citing the testimony of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit, pronounces it wonderful to hear, that Basil did not favour Dionysius more even at the time when he wrote the aforementioned book On the Holy Spirit. For Basil, when he cited Dionysius's testimony concerning the Holy Spirit, could call it wonderful to hear because it was in itself wonderful, as expressing not only the Holy Spirit but also the mystery of the most holy Trinity so perfectly that Basil had scarcely found it expressed more perfectly elsewhere. The testimony of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit, which Basil brought from Dionysius's second letter on accusation and defence into his Treatise On the Holy Spirit, and called wonderful to hear, runs thus: Consonantly with all these, we too, having received the form and rule from the presbyters who lived before us, giving thanks with voices concordant with them, now at length cease writing to you. But to God the Father and to the Son our Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be glory and dominion for ages of ages, amen. By which last words there is certainly most clearly expressed not only the Holy Spirit, but also the two other divine Persons, and the whole mystery of the most holy Trinity, so that Basil could call the aforesaid testimony of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit and the Trinity wonderful to hear, even if, having now become older, he favoured Dionysius more.

[219] However that may be, it is certain indeed that Basil, while still younger, This was more severe than just, and the manner of writing, on the contrary, spoke of Dionysius in the words recited above as of the fountain and author of the Anomoean, or Arian, heresy. But, you will say, what at length is to be thought of this severe censure of Basil against Dionysius? I answer: since Basil, in passing it, confesses that Dionysius (see the words recited at number 210) sinned not by depravity of opinion, but by zeal for attacking Sabellius, and in order to obtain a full and overflowing victory over him, he by no means judged Dionysius to have been akin to the Anomoean, or Arian, impiety. Wherefore, since he nevertheless affirms that Dionysius cast the first seeds of the Anomoean, or Arian, heresy, it is necessary that he condemns only the formulas of speaking which Dionysius employed, as favouring the Arians and containing the first seeds of their heresy. But, you will say again, are these rejected and condemned by Basil sufficiently rightly without any kinder interpretation applied? Athanasius, who was no less persuaded than Basil that Dionysius thought very orthodoxly concerning the most holy Trinity, admits indeed in his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius that various formulas of speaking concerning the most holy Trinity which Dionysius employed (go to number 168 of this Commentary) favoured the Arians; but he excuses them both from the later writings, in which Dionysius set out his mind more clearly, and from the end and sense with which he employed them. Those formulas of speaking regarded almost solely the human nature of Christ. And the Saint spoke almost solely of this to this end, that, since the Sabellians more audaciously denied the Son of God and ascribed His human things to the Father, by showing that not the Father but the Son was made Man for us, he might persuade the Sabellians that the Father is not the Son, and in this way lead men gradually to believing the true Deity of the Son and to the knowledge of the Father. This end the Saint had set before himself; this manner of writing he held against the Sabellians.

[220] And indeed that this was also useful, and apt to convert the Sabellians, which Dionysius held against the Sabellians, by Athanasius, Athanasius teaches in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, just cited again, number 26, in these words: And it is truly a fitting form of persuasion for overturning the madness of Sabellius, that he who wishes quickly to convict his followers should not take his beginning from the arguments indicating His divinity; namely that the Son is the Word, Wisdom and Power; nor from that: I and the Father are one; lest they (the Sabellians), twisting to a depraved sense things that were rightly said, should seize from this an occasion of impudent contention, when they hear: I and the Father are one, and, He who sees me sees my Father also; but that, after the example of the Saviour, he should set first the things which are found said of Him in human fashion: of which kind are to hunger, to labour, that He is the vine, that He prayed and suffered; for the more lowly these are to say, the more clearly is it demonstrated that the Father was not made man. For it is necessary, since the Lord is called the Vine, that there exist a husbandman; and since He prays, that there be one who hears; since, finally, He asks, that there be one who grants. For sayings of this kind show far more easily the madness of the Sabellians, since it is altogether necessary that he who prays is one, and he who hears another; the vine one, the husbandman another. For as many words as declare the Son as though alien from the Father, these pertain to the flesh which He bore for our sake.

[221] as useful, For works are by nature alien from God; therefore, since the flesh is a work, the Word, which, as John says, was made flesh, although according to nature it is proper to the Father and indivisible from Him, yet if the flesh is regarded, the Father is said to be removed from Him; for the things which are proper to the flesh He grants to be said of Himself, so that it may become plain from this that the body was not another's but His own. Since, therefore, these things are to be understood in that way, Sabellius will more quickly be convinced that it is not the Father who was made flesh; but His Word, which redeemed it and offered it to the Father. And when one has so convicted and persuaded him, he will thence more easily teach the divinity of the Word also; namely that He is the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Power, the Splendour and Figure. For it is necessary now to gather anew that, since the Word exists, there must also be the Father of the Word; since He is Wisdom, that there is His Parent; and since He is Splendour, that there is also Light, and so that the Father and the Son are one. Dionysius, knowing these things well, published those writings, and by the earlier words restrained Sabellius. And by these he lays low the Arian heresy. For as the human things of the Saviour are fit for overturning Sabellius, so conversely against the Ariomaniacs arguments are to be borrowed not from the human things but from those which indicate the divinity of the Word; lest they, wrongly interpreting the things which are said of the Lord on account of the body, should think that the Word is of such a kind as we men are, and at length persevere in their madness. Who, if they are taught concerning the Divinity, will themselves condemn their own error; and when they have learned that the Word was made flesh, will henceforth more easily distinguish the human things from those which pertain to the Divinity.

[222] is praised. Thus far Athanasius, showing that the manner of writing which Dionysius held against the Sabellians was very fit for recalling them from the impious opinion concerning the most holy Trinity with which they were infected. Let the studious reader now consider with which of the two one should agree: with Athanasius, who, after maturely discussing the matter, wrote a long Treatise for defending the reputation of Dionysius against the Arians, or rather with Basil, who, still younger, when asked by Maximus the philosopher to give his opinion of Dionysius, in a brief letter written to Maximus traduces the holy Man's manner of writing against Sabellius as superfluous and harmful, since by it the first seeds of the Anomoean, or Arian, heresy were cast. As for me, I revere both holy men exceedingly, namely Basil and Athanasius; Basil nevertheless seems more severe than is fair towards Dionysius on account of some formulas of speaking and comparisons employed, which Athanasius explains in more than one way fittingly and at the same time orthodoxly, when on account of them he makes the holy Man the first author of the Anomoean heresy. I proceed now to Basil's second assertion, in which he affirms that Dionysius (go to number 211) is not consistent with himself in his writings.

§ XX. Two other assertions of Basil concerning Dionysius are weighed.

That Dionysius, in the letter to Ammonius, removed the consubstantial The Benedictines, cited more than once already above, observe thus on these words of Basil in the letter to Maximus, recited before: Hence also he (Dionysius of Alexandria) is not consistent with himself in his writings, now removing the consubstantial on account of him who used this word wrongly for destroying the hypostases; now admitting it in those things which he wrote for the sake of defence to his namesake: What Basil asserts in this place is very doubtful, both that the consubstantial was removed by Dionysius and that it was employed by Sabellius. Dionysius himself refuted his accusers, by the testimony of Athanasius, in the same place (in the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, number 18), page 255: Who lyingly said of him (or rather, as it is in the Greek) asserted, that he had said that the Son is counted among created things and is by no means consubstantial with the Father. As regards Sabellius, it is not probable that the consubstantial pleased him, since it is no less adverse to him than to the Arians; nowhere are the Sabellians reported to have used this word. But since Basil had persuaded himself that Marcellus of Ancyra had abused it, he was easily led to pass the same judgment concerning Sabellius. So they; but we have already seen above that Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor said that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, so that the consubstantial could seem to Basil to have been removed by Dionysius; nor, as you will easily gather from what we disputed at number 172 and following, does it hinder anything that the Saint afterwards, in his letter to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, denied that he had asserted the Son of God not consubstantial with the Father.

[224] As regards now the second thing which the said Benedictines say, could seem to Basil; namely that it is doubtful whether the consubstantial was employed by Sabellius; I would not wish to oppose Basil asserting it except for altogether grave reasons; and those which the Benedictines adduce in the words just recited do not seem to be of this kind. The Sabellians attacked the distinction of Persons in the most holy Trinity. They could therefore argue thus from the consubstantial admitted, as they also in fact did: The Son is consubstantial with the Father, the Holy Spirit likewise is consubstantial with the Father and the Son together: therefore all three are of the same substance or nature: therefore all three constitute only one substance or nature, and accordingly also one Person only, and differ only in names. Certainly I do not see that the consubstantial is adverse to the Sabellians, unless you would likewise have it adverse to them that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit constitute one and the same substance or nature in the most holy Trinity. And to what the said Benedictines add, that the Sabellians are nowhere reported to have used the consubstantial, I answer that neither is the contrary anywhere reported, and accordingly, since nothing stands in the way of their being believed to have employed that word, one must agree with Basil, who expressly asserts that they abused the consubstantial for destroying the hypostases. Therefore what Basil asserts, in the words recited above more than once, concerning the consubstantial removed by Dionysius and employed by Sabellius is not very doubtful.

[225] But just as we agree with Basil here in this matter, must one likewise agree with him when, in the same words recited above, he affirms that Dionysius, [but that Dionysius, because elsewhere he admits the consubstantial, the same holy Writer] because he now rejects, now admits the consubstantial, is not consistent with himself in his writings? I answer: Dionysius, as we have shown above, asserted in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance; from which assertion it followed that the Son of God, according to Dionysius, was not consubstantial with the Father; but when the Saint there said that the Son of God is alien from the Father according to substance, he made his discourse, as we have likewise shown above, of Him considered according to the human nature. Now when Dionysius, in the letters or books written to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of defending himself, affirms that the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father, he speaks of Him not considered according to the human nature. Wherefore, since under a different respect he establishes the Son of God as consubstantial and not consubstantial with the Father in the writings just cited, I do not see how he can be said by Basil not to be consistent with himself in his writings, because in the letter to Ammonius he removes the consubstantial, and admits this word in the letters written to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of clearing himself.

[226] since the synod of Antioch rejected that word, Moreover, suppose that Dionysius, both in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor and in the letters written to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of clearing himself, spoke of the Son of God not considered according to the human nature: the Saint could nevertheless reject the word consubstantial when writing against the Sabellians in the letter to Ammonius, because the Sabellians, as Basil says, employed it wrongly or took it in a perverse sense; and admit it in the letters written to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of clearing himself. So the Fathers of the council of Antioch, celebrated in the year 269 or 270 against Paul of Samosata, not undeservedly rejected the word consubstantial, because Paul abused it for establishing his impious doctrine concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity; while the Fathers of the great Nicene synod, who proscribed Arius, not undeservedly on the contrary admitted the same. Hear one who bears testimony on this matter, and let Athanasius speak, writing these things in the letter on the synods, number 45: Although the Fathers of both synods (of Antioch and Nicaea) made mention of the consubstantial differently, we ought by no means to dissent from them, but to search out their meaning, and then we shall find that both synods agree with each other. For those who deposed the Samosatene took the word consubstantial in a corporeal manner, since Paul wished to argue and say, If Christ was not made God from man, then He is consubstantial with the Father, and hence it is necessary that there be three substances; one prior, and two proceeding from it. And therefore, rightly guarding against that sophism of Paul (the Samosatene), they said that Christ is not consubstantial; for the Son is not so related to the Father as he thought.

[227] the Nicene admitted it, But those who condemned the Arian heresy with anathema, since they had perceived the cunning of Paul, and considered that consubstantiality is not so to be taken of incorporeal things, and especially of God, and acknowledged that the Word is not a creature but an offspring from the substance; likewise that the substance of the Father is the principle, root and spring of the Son, and that He is from Himself the true likeness of the begetter, and is not separated from the Father as though foreign in nature, as we are, but, since He is from Him, is an undivided Son, as splendour is towards light; since likewise the examples of Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria) favoured them, namely the word Spring and the defence of the Consubstantial; and before these the saying of the Saviour indicating unity: I and the Father are one; and, He who has seen me has seen the Father also; for that reason, I say, they too rightly called the Son consubstantial. And just as, as I said above, no one would blame the Apostle for having written of the Law to the Romans in one way, to the Hebrews in another; so neither would the men of the present time accuse those ancients, if they consider their interpretation; nor would the ancients reprehend their posterity, if they observe with what meaning and with what usage they wrote thus of the Lord. For each synod for a legitimate cause spoke in this manner, one in one way, the other in another. For since the Samosatene held that the Son was not before Mary, but received the beginning of existing from her, the bishops then gathered deposed him and declared him a heretic; but since they wrote more simply concerning the divinity of the Son, they did not come to an accurate interpretation of the consubstantial, but spoke of consubstantiality as they had conceived it.

[228] Since, then, as you will easily gather from these words of Athanasius already transcribed here, censures with a severer censure than is fitting, the Fathers of the council of Antioch rejected the consubstantial for this reason, that Paul of Samosata took that word in the sense in which in human generation the son is said to be consubstantial with the father, that is, of the same substance with him as regards species, and hence inferred that, if Christ were from the substance of God the Father, there would be three substances in the most holy Trinity distinguished in the way in which in human generation the substance of the son is distinguished from the substance of the father; since, I say, the Fathers of the council of Antioch rejected the consubstantial for this reason, Dionysius too, writing against the Sabellians, could deservedly reject the same word, if these (as Basil says) took it in a perverse sense. The Sabellians confused the divine persons, and accordingly by the consubstantial perhaps understood not only the unity of essence or substance but also of person. And if they took the consubstantial in this sense, Dionysius, writing against them, will deservedly have rejected that word, and afterwards, when he wrote to the Roman Pontiff for the sake of clearing himself, admitted the same, just as the Fathers of the Nicene synod likewise afterwards admitted the same word, although before rejected by those of Antioch. Therefore, in whatever way the matter is regarded, I do not see whether Dionysius is said with sufficient fairness by Basil not to be consistent with himself in his writings, since, from what has been said, the consubstantial which he rejected in one place he does not afterwards admit in another except as taken in a different sense. And indeed it does not appear probable that such a man as Dionysius was should have been little or not at all consistent with himself in believing a chief article of faith. Here too, then, the judgment of Basil concerning Dionysius seems more severe than is fitting, and accordingly I would rather agree with Athanasius, who explained in an orthodox sense, by having recourse to the human nature which it assumed, whatever Dionysius, making the Son of God alien from the Father according to substance, asserted in appearance contrary to the consubstantiality of the Divine Word, and showed the Saint as far as possible alien from the errors of the Arians. This is our judgment on the second thing which Basil uttered concerning Dionysius, and which we have explained above

opinion. It now remains that I set out what is to be thought of the third thing which Basil likewise uttered concerning Dionysius.

[229] That judgment is framed in these words, recited above already: Moreover, concerning the Spirit he uttered words by no means worthy of the Spirit, separating Him from the adored Deity, and numbering Him among the lower things together with the created and ministering nature. and this very thing, carping at Dionysius's doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, Basil's third judgment concerning Dionysius, then, turns on this, that he thinks the Holy Spirit is counted by Dionysius among things made or created. Athanasius, who vindicates Dionysius against the Arians from the error of those who count the Son of God among the creatures, wrote absolutely nothing by which he might show the Saint free from the error of having reckoned the Holy Spirit among the creatures. But Basil himself, and also Dionysius himself in his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, bring forward those opinions of our Saint concerning the Holy Spirit from which it is made manifest that he thought no less orthodoxly of the third than of the second person of the Trinity. In order that each one may be able to consider the matter rightly, I transcribe the chief words of Basil and Dionysius bearing on it. Those of Basil, of which I have already given a part above, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29, are these: That Irenaeus, and Clement of Rome, and Dionysius of Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria, which is even wonderful to hear, in the second letter to his namesake concerning accusation and defence, ended his discourse in this manner. I will transcribe for you the very words of the man: Consonantly with all these, he says, we too, having received the form and rule from the presbyters who lived before us, giving thanks with voices concordant with them, now at length cease writing to you. But to God the Father and to the Son our Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be glory and dominion for ages of ages, amen.

[230] since this, from various sayings of the Saint which St. Basil himself This is the first orthodox opinion of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit which Basil brings forward in the book just cited. Here also are the words immediately subjoined to those just recited, in which he also brings forward other opinions of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit no less orthodox: Nor could anyone say, he says, that these things were corrected and changed. For he would not have so confirmed his discourse, saying, namely, that he had received the form and rule, if he had said in the Spirit: for the use of this expression is frequent. But that was what needed defence. Who indeed also in the middle of the writing speaks thus against the Sabellians: If, because there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, they are three, even if they do not wish it: or let them take away the divine Trinity altogether. And again, for on this account also the most divine Trinity is after the unity. These things Basil committed to writing in the said book On the Holy Spirit, when he was accused by some of thinking wrongly concerning the Holy Spirit. This holy writer therefore judged, when he composed that book, that Dionysius was free from every suspicion of error concerning the third Person of the Trinity; for otherwise Dionysius would not have been cited by him in his own defence, if the latter could have been brought under suspicion of the same crime equally with himself. It seems, then, as we have already shown above, more probable that Basil, having now become older, changed the opinion which he had held of Dionysius when younger. Go to number 218 of this Commentary, where you will also find proved that the contrary is not rightly concluded from the fact that Basil, in the very place in which, now older, in the book On the Holy Spirit, in the words just recited, he brings forward the most excellent testimony of Dionysius concerning the Holy Spirit, calls it πάραδοξον᾽ ἀκοῦσαι, wonderful to hear.

[231] However that may be, whether Basil, now older, changed or did not change the opinion which he had passed of Dionysius when younger, the texts which that holy writer, in the words produced above, cites as committed to writing by Dionysius and the Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius certainly contain orthodox doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. Moreover, how orthodoxly Dionysius thought concerning the Holy Spirit is also clear from two sayings of the Saint which Athanasius brought from Dionysius's second book on the Elenchus and Apologia into his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius, and which the Benedictine version, which I use, exhibits at number 17 of this Treatise. The first, already transcribed above for elucidating Dionysius's opinion concerning the second Person of the Trinity, and now to be transcribed here again, at least in part, for likewise elucidating the holy Man's doctrine concerning the third Person of the Trinity, runs thus: I said the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I had already signified Him in the Father; I added the Son, and even if I had not first named the Father, He had nevertheless been comprehended in the name of the Son; I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same time I added both whence and through whom He proceeded. But they do not know that neither can the Father, inasmuch as He is Father, be alienated from the Son, for that name is the origin of conjunction; nor the Son separated from the Father; for the word Father indicates something common. And in their hands is the Spirit, who can be separated neither from the one sending nor from the one bearing. How then should I, who use such names, think them separated from one another and altogether different? The second is framed in these words, which, because they are especially worthy of note, I transcribe here in Greek and Latin together: Ὅυτω μὲν ἡμεῖς ἐίστε τὴν τριάδα τὴν μονάδα πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα πάλιν ἀμείωτον εἰς τὴν μονάδα συγκεφαλαιούμεθα. Thus indeed we expand the indivisible Unity into the Trinity, and again contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into the Unity.

[232] The Benedictines, in the Notes which they attach to the said Treatise of Athanasius, exhibit in Athanasius, is proved to have been orthodox, observe thus concerning the second saying of Dionysius, already transcribed here in Greek and Latin: This excellent clause, τὴν μονάδα πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα παλιν ἀμείωτον εἰς τὴν μονάδα συγκεφαλαιούμεθα, which is lacking in the printed editions, is found in all the Manuscripts, and was translated by the old interpreter; so that there is no doubt that it was omitted by a printer's error, because these words τριάδα and μονάδα ended alike: which is likewise plain from those things which are found below at number 19, where namely Athanasius writes thus: And that they (the Arians) separate and divide the Word from God, this he (Dionysius of Alexandria) condemns, when he says that the Trinity, which can neither be divided nor diminished, is contracted into unity. In Greek: Καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀποσχοινίζειν καὶ διαιρεῖν ἀυτοὺς τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναιρεῖ λέγων ἀυτὸς ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἀμείωτον τὴν τριάδα εἱς μονάδα συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι. From which words chiefly, as uttered by Athanasius with regard to the words which he had previously recited from Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia, what the Benedictines observe in the words just transcribed concerning the second saying of Dionysius about the most holy Trinity becomes undoubted to me, so that I hold for certain that it was truly uttered by Dionysius. And this excellent saying, worthy to be written in golden letters, by which all the heresies that have sprung up against the Trinity are routed, stands out above all the other sayings of Dionysius. So, almost word for word, the said Benedictines in the Admonition which they set before the Treatise of Athanasius on the opinion of Dionysius. To expand the Persons into the holy Trinity and to gather them into one essence, says Isidore of Pelusium, book 2, letter 144, is a most right and most true doctrine. It is clear, then, from the second saying of Dionysius transcribed here, that he thought very rightly and orthodoxly concerning the whole most holy Trinity, and accordingly also concerning the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, since this very thing is also manifest from the Saint's saying concerning the Trinity transcribed in the preceding number, and from others besides mentioned above, and all these, as you will easily understand from what was said before, are drawn from Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia, Basil certainly did not draw from these that unfavourable judgment which, as we have shown before, he uttered concerning Dionysius's doctrine on the Holy Spirit.

[233] he most probably also does, But, you will say, by what writings of Dionysius, then, was Basil moved to judge so unfavourably of the Saint's doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit? I answer: most probably by no others than the letter written by Dionysius to Ammonius and Euphranor against the Sabellians, from which Basil also judged that the first seeds of the Anomoean heresy were cast by Dionysius. But just as Basil, judging this, seems, as we have already said, to have been more severe than is fair towards Dionysius, so we judge that he was likewise more severe than is fair towards him when he says: Moreover, (St. Dionysius) concerning the Spirit uttered words by no means worthy of the Spirit, separating Him from the adored Trinity, and numbering Him among the lower things together with the created and ministering nature. St. Athanasius explained in a thoroughly orthodox sense the words uttered by Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor which were capable of a heterodox sense, and which Basil took as seeds of the Anomoean heresy, and so showed further in his Treatise on the opinion of Dionysius that they can and must be explained. Hence it is right to suspect that likewise the words of Dionysius which Basil nowhere brings forward, and by which he thought the Holy Spirit was reckoned among the creatures, were capable of an orthodox sense, and would have had to be interpreted orthodoxly by Athanasius, if he, as he wrote a Treatise for defending Dionysius's opinion concerning the second Person of the Trinity, had also drawn his pen for defending the holy Man's doctrine concerning the third Person of the Trinity.

[234] [and hence it becomes evident what is to be established in general concerning Basil's judgment on Dionysius.] These things by name concerning the third judgment of Basil on Dionysius, mentioned above. In order at length to declare what is to be thought of all three judgments of this holy writer, hold it thus: Basil had observed in Dionysius's letter to Ammonius some expressions which, although they could be explained orthodoxly, yet, taken in the more obvious sense, were capable of a worse interpretation. Hence that holy writer, attending more to the clamours of the Arians or Anomoeans, who kept saying that their impious doctrine was drawn from Dionysius, than to the later Writings of the Saint, which were beyond all doubt thoroughly orthodox and capable of no worse interpretation, censured with a severer censure than is fitting the earlier writings of Dionysius, or the letter given to Ammonius and Euphranor. But although the heretics who deny the liberty of human choice continually appeal to St. Augustine for this opinion of theirs, this holy Doctor nevertheless, since he most clearly admits the liberty of choice elsewhere, wherever he may seem to deny it, cannot deservedly be said to have supplied seeds to the perverse opinion of the heretics who deny liberty. Gather from this what is to be thought in general of Basil's judgment on Dionysius, and what I think is to be thought. I at length resume the series of the matters concerning our Saint, which I have for a while interrupted by discussing and defending St. Dionysius's doctrine concerning the most holy Trinity.

§ XXI. The year in which Valerian was captured by the Persians

is inquired into, and thus the way is opened for arranging chronologically the remaining deeds of Dionysius.

Valerian is captured by the Persians; Valerian, having exercised a most cruel persecution against the Christians for three years and more, as we shall show, at length, in the seventh year of his reign according to what is to be said, was captured by the Persians and led away into servitude, and by the just judgment of God paid the penalty of his impiety. Lactantius, in the book On the Deaths of the persecutors, after he has spoken of Decius and the persecution stirred up by him, writes thus on this matter in chapter 5: Not long after, Valerian also, seized with a not dissimilar fury, stretched out impious hands against God, and, although in a short time, shed much righteous blood. But God visited him with a new and singular kind of punishment, that it might be a lesson to posterity that the adversaries of God often receive a reward worthy of their crime. He, captured by the Persians, lost not only the empire which he had used insolently, but also the liberty which he had taken from others, and lived most basely in servitude. For the king of the Persians, Sapor, who had captured him, whenever it pleased him either to mount a vehicle or a horse, ordered the Roman to bend down to him and present his back, and, placing his foot on his back, said that this was the truth, reproaching him with laughter, not what the Romans painted on tablets or walls. So he, most worthily triumphed over, lived for some while, that the Roman name might long be a laughing-stock and a derision to the barbarians. This too was added to his punishment, that, although he had a son as emperor, he nevertheless found no avenger of his captivity and extreme servitude, nor was he demanded back at all. But after he had ended his shameful life in that disgrace, his skin was torn off, and the hide stripped from his flesh was dyed with red colour, that it might be placed in the temple of the barbarian gods in memory of a most illustrious triumph, and might always be displayed to our ambassadors, lest the Romans should trust too much in their strength, when they saw the spoils of a captured prince among their gods.

[236] So the said Lactantius, rightly indeed relating that Valerian was captured by the Persians by the just judgment of God in punishment of his impiety, this more probably happened in the year 260: yet adding no chronological mark from which you might in any way gather in what year it happened that that emperor was captured. The other ancient writers who committed that matter to writing also labour under the same defect. There are indeed some who marked that event with chronological marks added too, but these are of such a kind that from them you could only with the greatest difficulty define with sufficient certainty the year in which Valerian was captured by the Persians. Hence there is sharp dispute on that matter among the learned, some contending for the year 259, others on the contrary for the year 260. Among these not the lowest place is held by Pearson in the Annales Cyprianici and Pagi in the Critica, whom alone I here almost mention, because they exhibit in compendium whatever other writers hand down on this argument. The former contends that Valerian's captivity is to be fixed to the year 260, the latter to the year 259. With which of the two one should rather agree I investigate in this paragraph. And to bring forward my opinion from the very beginning of this inquiry, I embrace Pearson's opinion. Pagi indeed tries to overthrow it with various arguments; but he brings forward absolutely none, as far at least as appears to me, which presses so much as to compel one to depart from Pearson's opinion. As regards Pearson, although all the reasons he brings, even taken together, do not prove the matter, that is, do not make it undoubted and certain, they nevertheless render it most probable. Moreover, although he proposes some which could easily be broken, he nevertheless adds others which are exceedingly strong, and which impel me to agree with Pearson's opinion chiefly for this reason, that it is more common than Pagi's opinion, and saves no less the chronological marks which I find supplied by the ancient writers, those, namely, whose credit is to be held entire. The matter will become evident from what is to be said. I begin from the reasons by which Pearson contends that Valerian's captivity is to be fixed to the year 260.

[237] three arguments, by which this epoch is established. This writer, in the Annales Cyprianici cited above, at the year 260, number 3, having first set down two reasons which I do not think fit to transcribe here, as less strong for proving the matter in controversy, has thus: Third, Secularis and Donatus, who were not consuls before the seventh year of his (Valerian's) reign, are subscribed to the rescripts of Valerian and Gallienus so many times that it is necessary that he (Valerian) still enjoyed liberty in some part of this year (260, namely). Fourth, he (Valerian) could not have persecuted the Christians for forty-two months, which is rightly gathered from the writings of Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria), unless his authority had lasted in some part of this year. Finally Sextus Aurelius Victor confirms our reckoning, when he says of Gallienus: he reigned fifteen years, with his father seven, alone eight. So Pearson, adding three reasons to the two others which he had set down immediately before, on account of which he judges that Valerian was captured by the Persians in the year 260. On the first of these three last reasons I do not wish to insist much, and I readily concede to Pagi, who, in the Critica at the year 259, number XI, meets it in this manner: But if this reason (namely, the one indicated at the beginning of the words which I have just cited from Pearson) held good, it would follow that Valerian was still placed at liberty in the year 261; since in the Justinian code laws are found which bear in the title Gallienus and Valerian Augusti. Such and similar inscriptions are therefore faulty, and wrongly added by him who collected the laws, as Baronius noted, speaking of a certain rescript of the emperor Severus given in the first year of his reign, which exhibits the name of Severus and of Antoninus his son, not yet emperor. We shall indicate similar errors below, both in Carus and in Diocletian. Thus far the said Pagi, with whom, refuting in the recited words the argument which Pearson draws from the rescripts signed with Valerian's name and to be referred to the year 260, I, as I have already said, without difficulty agree.

[238] To the other of these two latter, drawn from a certain passage of Dionysius, But I do not think one should likewise agree with this writer when he likewise refutes, or rather thinks he refutes, the last two arguments of Pearson contained in the words transcribed from this author in the preceding number. For the reasons by which he tries to accomplish this prove absolutely nothing, and hence it comes about that, since the assertions of the ancient writers concerning Valerian's captivity can be explained not inconveniently if it is attached to the year 260, I most readily agree with Pearson, who assigns this epoch to Valerian's captivity, and I think that those will do so no less promptly who shall go through with attentive mind what we are about to dispute in the course of this paragraph. The first of the two last-mentioned arguments of Pearson is reduced roughly to this: Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book 7, chapter 10, in the letter to Hermammon, writes thus of Valerian: To John also it was similarly revealed. For he says: And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and impious, and power was given to him, and forty-two months. And one may wonder that both were fulfilled in Valerian. Furthermore Dionysius, applying this prophecy of John to Valerian, designates that the persecution set in motion by him against the Christians lasted about forty-two months, and that peace was not restored to the Church before these had elapsed. Wherefore, since Valerian did not begin to persecute the Christians before the year 257, it is necessary that he was not captured by the Persians and led away into servitude before the year 260: for otherwise he would have persecuted the Church not for forty-two months, but for two years only, and it will have to be said that the aforementioned prophecy of John was wrongly applied to him by Dionysius.

[239] Such, as I have already said, is the first of the two latter arguments of Pearson. Pagi answers that Dionysius spoke of Egypt alone; Let us now see what Pagi answers to this. In what year, he says at the year 259, number 10, Valerian was captured by Sapor has so far been called into controversy, because Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 10, speaking of the persecution stirred up by him, applies to him these words of the Apocalypse 13: And power was given to him to do for forty-two months; from which words Baronius inferred that this persecution was continued for three years and six months. Wherefore, since he thought it began with Maximus and Glabrio as consuls, namely in the year of Christ 256, he assigned its end to the current year (259, namely), and therefore also Valerian's captivity; for when he had been led away into Persia, Gallienus restored peace to the Church. Pearson and others, who found that the persecution was stirred up in the year 257, judged that Valerian's servitude and the Church's peace happened in the following year (260, namely); nor have there been lacking those who, by a great error, deferred both into the year 261. But Dionysius of Alexandria was not understood by most learned men. For what he wrote of his own church and of Egypt they interpreted of the universal Church; although it is most certain that the persecution in Egypt, and especially at Alexandria, blazed even after Valerian's captivity, as we shall presently demonstrate. The year of Valerian's capture is therefore to be explained independently of that prophecy. In which way it is certain that in the current year (259, namely) Valerian was reduced to the fortune of a slave, to use the words of Zosimus, when the seventh year of his reign had begun, and therefore about the beginning of summer. Pagi utters various things in these words as certain and undoubted. But among these only one occurs which deserves to be held certain and undoubted, as supported by most solid reasons, namely that the persecution in Egypt, and especially at Alexandria, blazed even after Valerian's captivity.

[240] As regards the rest, I do not see but the Saint spoke of the universal Church; under what name they could be counted among those things which ought to have certain and undoubted credit. For, to set aside other things which do not bear on this, he says that Dionysius of Alexandria was not understood by most learned men, and that they wrongly interpreted of the universal Church what Dionysius wrote of his own Alexandrian church alone in the words recited from Eusebius at number 238; moreover that it is certain that Valerian's captivity, provided it is explained independently of the prophecy of John recited in the words at number 238, is to be attached to the year 259. Whether this last assertion of Pagi undoubtedly agrees with the truth I shall inquire afterwards. I now show that Dionysius, when he makes his discourse of Valerian in the words transcribed here at number 238, probably spoke of the universal Church of Christ, and not of the Alexandrian alone. I prove the matter thus: Dionysius, in committing to writing the words at number 238, probably looked to nothing else than that to which John looked in inserting the aforesaid prophecy, contained in these words, into his book of the Apocalypse. Now since it appears certain that John, when he uttered those words, looked to the universal, and not to the particular Alexandrian church, it seems likely that Dionysius spoke of the universal Church of Christ, and not of the Alexandrian alone, when the words at number 238 from the letter to Hermammon

he brought forward concerning Valerian. Certainly Dionysius does not seem to have had reason to think that the aforementioned prophecy of John was to be referred to his own Alexandrian church alone. And indeed that Dionysius did not in fact refer the prophecy of John to his own Alexandrian church alone, that is, that he did not speak of the Alexandrian church alone when he wrote the words recited at number 238, I show thus.

[241] and probably did not speak of Egypt alone, as is shown by several The Saint, in the words at the said number 238, speaks of a persecution which lasted forty-two months. Now the persecution stirred up by Valerian against the Christians in Egypt, and especially at Alexandria, lasted not only forty-two months, but four years and more. For when Valerian had been captured by the Persians, Macrianus, a most hostile enemy of the Christian name, who, as we have shown above, most certainly impelled Valerian to the persecution which he exercised against the Christians, seized the tyranny in Egypt, as we shall show below; and he, as cannot be doubted, not only did not diminish but rather increased the cruelty of the persecution undertaken against the Christians; wishing thus, namely, the more to gratify those by whom the empire had been foretold to him, in the way in which he had gratified them before by rousing Valerian against the Christians, as we have already shown at number 121 of this Commentary. Furthermore Macrianus, as Pagi himself teaches and firmly contends, having obtained the supreme power in Egypt towards the end of the year 259, held the reins of empire through the whole eighth year of Gallienus, and did not before the ninth year of the same Gallienus, taken off by a violent death, exchange life for death. Wherefore, since the eighth year of Gallienus beyond doubt does not end before the year of Christ 261, Macrianus, with whose death the persecution in Egypt first ceased, did not depart from the living before the same year of Christ, and accordingly, since from the year 257, in which Valerian set in motion the persecution against the Christians, up to the year 261, in which Macrianus died and the persecution came to an end, four years run, Dionysius, employing the words of the Apocalypse recited above, and designating by them a persecution which lasted for the space of forty-two months, does not seem to have spoken of the Alexandrian church alone, that is, of a persecution which was set in motion in it alone.

[242] It remains, then, that he rather made his discourse of the universal Church. reasons But, you will say, it does not appear, even granted that Dionysius spoke of the universal Church, that forty-two months can in any way be found during which Valerian may be established to have persecuted it before he was captured by the Persians and led away into servitude. I answer that those months are found with easy trouble. I conceive the matter thus: suppose Valerian, at the impulse of Macrianus, began to persecute the Christians in the year 257, about the month of April or May. Then suppose that in the year 260, about the month of March or even earlier, he undertook a warlike expedition against the Persians, and, captured by them about the month of April of the said year 260, was led away into Persia; you will have about three years during which Valerian persecuted the Christians before his captivity. Furthermore, since Gallienus restored peace to the Church only when some months had already elapsed after Valerian's captivity, and the persecution against the Christians meanwhile still lasted, deservedly to be ascribed to Valerian, as continued by the force of his edicts, the persecution of Valerian can be said to have lasted forty-two months even with regard to the universal Church. Consider now, studious reader, what is to be thought of the words of Pagi recited at number 239, and whether this writer deservedly pronounces again thus at the year 261, number 13: Since in the former part of the letter of Dionysius to Hermammon, which Eusebius reports in book 7, chapter 10, Dionysius says: To John also it was similarly revealed. For he says: And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and impious, and power was given to him, and forty-two months; (Apoc. 13) and one may wonder that both were fulfilled in Valerian; those forty-two months end in this year (261, namely) with the destruction of Macrianus and his sons. For through so many months Egypt and Alexandria were vexed; for of them alone Dionysius speaks; not of the persecution of the Church in general, as that passage is commonly explained by all. So Pagi, repeating here again what he had asserted above concerning the explanation to be fitted to the words of Dionysius, already very often mentioned. But I, on account of what has already been said, would rather agree with all those learned men who, as Pagi says in the recited words, explain that passage of Dionysius in the letter to Hermammon of the persecution of the Church in general, than with Pagi alone.

[243] And indeed, the more attentively I consider the said passage of Dionysius, adduced, the more vehemently am I impelled to think that it is to be understood of the persecution which afflicted the universal Church. For it seems fair that that passage should be understood of the persecution which is known to fill more exactly, and that without excess or defect, the space of time which is designated by it. Now since the said passage is beyond doubt to be explained of a persecution which held for forty-two months, it follows that it must be explained of the persecution which, by the force of the edicts issued by Valerian, afflicted the universal Church of Christ; and not of the persecution which vexed the Alexandrian church alone or Egypt alone. For this latter persecution held not forty-two months only, but four entire years and perhaps even more, as we have already shown above, partly even from Pagi's own calculations. But if you contend that the persecution of Valerian was begun later in Egypt than at Rome, and accordingly that an exact space of forty-two months can be found, running from the beginning of the persecution exercised by Valerian in Egypt up to the completion of the eighth year of the reign of Gallienus, in which it came to an end in Egypt and at Alexandria: I answer that, even this being granted, forty-two months cannot be found exactly during which the persecution stirred up by Valerian's edicts lasted in Egypt. For the persecution of Valerian, however much later it be established to have begun in Egypt than at Rome, nevertheless cannot have taken its beginning at Alexandria and in Egypt later than the month of August or the beginning of September of the year 257, as you will gather from number 125 of this Commentary. Now since the persecution of Valerian, according to what has already been said, did not have its end in Egypt before the completion of the eighth year of the reign of Gallienus, and this prince, according to Pagi's own calculations, first took the reins of empire in the year 253 in the month of May, and accordingly completed the eighth year of his reign in the month of May of the year 261, it follows that the persecution of Valerian in Egypt did not come to an end before this very year and month. Wherefore, since from May of the year 261 back to August or the beginning of September of the year 257, in which the said persecution in Egypt began, there are counted in retrograde order not only forty-two but at least forty-five months, there cannot exactly be found, granted even that the persecution of Valerian was begun later in Egypt than at Rome, only forty-two months during which the same persecution lasted in Egypt.

[244] shown; The aforesaid passage of Dionysius of Alexandria cannot, then, be understood of the persecution which afflicted Egypt alone; since this, as is clear from what has already been said, does not fill exactly and without excess the space of time which is designated by the said passage. It remains, then, that that same passage must be explained of the persecution which concerned the universal Church. Nor is there ground for you to say that from the month of April of the year 257, in which, as we said above, the persecution of Valerian began, up to the time at which Valerian was captured by the Persians and led away into servitude, forty-two months do not run. For we measure the duration of the persecution set in motion by Valerian not by the space of time alone which intervened between the beginning of the persecution and Valerian's captivity, but also by that which flowed from the latter up to the time at which Gallienus restored peace to the Church; and this latter space of time is taken as part of the time during which Valerian's persecution lasted for this reason, that, although Valerian at that time, as having been led away captive into Persia, set in motion absolutely nothing new against the Christians, the persecution was nevertheless, as we have already said before, continued by the force of the edicts which he had issued. Furthermore, since from April of the year 257, in which month, as I have already more than once advised, Valerian's persecution may have been begun, up to October of the year 260, in which month nothing forbids establishing the peace restored to the Church by Gallienus, there run neither more nor fewer than forty-two months, the passage of Dionysius, already very often mentioned above, can rightly be explained of Valerian's persecution as it concerned the universal Church; since, namely, this fills most perfectly, without any defect or excess at all, the space of time which is designated by that passage.

[245] [and that Valerian was captured in the year 260 is defined from the said passage of Dionysius;] But, you will say, if the said passage of Dionysius is to be explained in the manner just stated, we learn from it only at what time the persecution set in motion by Valerian came to an end, that is, in what year and month Gallienus, his father having already been captured, restored peace to the Church, but not at what time Valerian, captured by the Persians, was led away into servitude. I answer: so it is: from the passage of Dionysius, regarded in itself, we learn only the year and month in which Valerian's persecution came to an end by the public edict of Gallienus; but since Valerian, as is sufficiently agreed among the learned, was captured and led away into Persia only a few months before peace was restored to the Church by Gallienus, from this together with the end of the persecution, which according to what has already been said falls in October of the year 260, it is rightly gathered that Valerian was captured by the Persians and led away into servitude not in the year 259 but in the year 260. The year of Valerian's capture can therefore be explained most fittingly with account taken also of the Dionysian passage already very often mentioned, and accordingly it is not necessary that that year be explained independently of it, as Pagi contends in the words recited at number 239. Gather from this now that the argument which is drawn from the prophecy of John, referred by Dionysius to the persecution set in motion by Valerian, does not lose its force from the things which Pagi brings forward to weaken and overthrow it, and accordingly that it proves most strongly that Valerian's captivity is to be attached not to the year 259, as Pagi, just cited again, would have it, but to the year 260. But let what has been said suffice concerning the first of the two latter arguments of Pearson for fixing Valerian's captivity to the year 260. I come now to the other, and the last of all.

[246] Pearson draws it, as is clear from his words transcribed here above, for which epoch of Valerian's capture another argument of Pearson is proposed, from this passage of Sextus Aurelius Victor concerning Gallienus: he reigned fifteen years, with his father seven, alone eight. In order that the force of this argument may appear, I add here a few things for the sake of elucidating the matter. Gallienus, as the said Victor testifies, reigned fifteen years, and of these

as very many learned men contend, not mutilated in any greater part of themselves, but nearly entire, since, as Pagi teaches at the year 268, number 3, they took their beginning in the year 253, about the month of May, and their end in the year 268, about the month of March. Furthermore, since from the testimony of Victor transcribed here we have it that Gallienus governed alone for eight years after the captivity of Valerian, his father, it appears necessary that Valerian was not led away into captivity by the Persians before the year 260; for if this is established to have happened in the year 259, Gallienus would have held the reins of empire alone not for eight years only, but for nearly nine, as will be plain to one who considers it; nor is there ground for you to reply that the excess above entire years was neglected by Victor, and that those alone are therefore counted. For this does not seem capable of being said for the reason that the said Victor at the same time asserts that Gallienus reigned with his father seven years, which, as is admitted among the learned, were not entire, but only incomplete; so that, lest he should have to be said to speak in one and the same place, and that in one and the same phrase, of years at once complete and incomplete, which seems inelegant, the eight years during which he affirms Gallienus reigned alone, and the seven years during which he reigned with his father, are all to be taken as incomplete. Such is the argument which is deduced from the words of Victor recited above for fixing Valerian's captivity to the year 260.

[247] I now transcribe the words in which Pagi answers this in the Critica at the year 259, number XI. against which, by the answer which he uses, Victor, he says, enumerates the seven years during which Gallienus ruled with his father as incomplete at both ends and Julian years, not as years of reign; but on the contrary, when he notes the years during which he reigned without his father, he gathers into the sum only entire Julian years, each incomplete extreme being passed over; which manner of numbering was also used by other ancients, although more rarely. So Pagi, bringing forward absolutely nothing to prove his assertions except an altogether vague and general answer, in which he affirms that the manner of numbering which he says was observed by Victor was also used by the ancients, although more rarely. I for my part think that that manner of numbering was used by the ancients not only more rarely but even very rarely, or perhaps even never. However that may be, certainly I have so far found no ancient writer whom I could make out from any circumstances to have followed the manner cited by Pagi in numbering years. And indeed that historian would seem to me little accurate who, in one and the same phrase assigning the years during which two different princes reigned, should exhibit the duration of the reign of one by complete years, and of the other by incomplete ones, in the manner Pagi says, with no indication at all added from which it might in any way appear that he does so. It does not seem likely, then, that Victor, since he nowhere indicates it, followed a manner of this kind in designating years. But, says Pagi at the year 268, number 3, Gallienus ruled after his father had been captured by the Persians nine years, as Eutropius and Victor, On the Caesars, have it, or eight years, as Victor writes in the Epitome, who differ only in the manner of numbering. Pollio, in the Two Galliens, reports that some committed to writing that Gallienus ruled nine, others even ten. From which last words we understand that Gallienus began to reign alone in the two hundred and fifty-ninth year; for from that year to the current one (268, namely) ten years incomplete at both ends have flowed; but nine not quite entire. He ruled in all fifteen years, as all the ancients report.

[248] absolutely nothing So Pagi in the place cited. But Pollio, when he asserts that nine years of reign are attributed to Gallienus by some and ten by others, in no way affirms that a different reckoning of years was employed by them, by which they disagree with one another in defining the number of the years of Gallienus's reign, so that it is doubtful to me whether those writers of whom Pollio speaks in fact followed a different manner in noting the years. Moreover Pollio seems to me an unsuitable authority for defining the years of Gallienus's reign. For in the book on the two Galliens, in Saloninus Gallienus, he also writes thus of the reign of Gallienus ruling alone: That the reign of Gallienus passed a decade is sufficiently clear. By which words he most clearly teaches that Gallienus presided over the Roman empire for more than ten years; which Pagi himself, and not undeservedly, affirms without doubt to be foreign to the truth. Wherefore, since Pollio doubtless did not commit this to writing except on the credit of other writers, it is necessary that those on whose credit he extends the reign of Gallienus up to the eleventh year erred in determining the duration of Gallienus's reign, and accordingly it can easily be that those others who, as Pollio testifies, write that Gallienus ruled ten years likewise strayed from the truth. Hence we ought not to be moved by the authority of those writers, or rather of Pollio, who seems to have assented to them lightly, to believe that Gallienus presided alone over the Roman empire up to the tenth year; especially since no older historian is now found surviving who extends the reign of Gallienus ruling alone up to that year.

[249] does Pagi prove, As regards Eutropius and Victor On the Caesars, which two authors Pagi likewise cites in the words just recited for confirming his opinion, these can, as is often done elsewhere by Pagi himself, be explained in such a way that they mean that Gallienus ruled alone for only nine incomplete Julian years, which run from the year 260 up to the year 268, the year of Gallienus's death; for here that inconvenience does not occur on account of which I rejected at number 247 a similar explanation made by Pagi. And these things indeed concerning Victor as well as Eutropius; but as regards Victor by name, it is not strange that nine years were noted by him during which Gallienus ruled alone without his father. For he extends to only six years that space of time during which Gallienus held the empire with his father. And it is certain, and admitted also by Pagi, that the seventh year of Gallienus's reign had already been begun at least some months when Valerian his father was captured and led away into servitude. Victor, then, cited by Pagi, seems to have been little accurate when he wrote that Valerian was captured by the Persians in the sixth year of his reign. Pagi indeed says that the excess of months above entire years was neglected by him; but although I confess that that manner of computing is not unusual even with the gravest writers of the best note when they express years by a cardinal number, I do not see that it equally has place when I find years expressed by them by an ordinal number, so that Victor, cited by Pagi, since he used an ordinal number in expressing the years, is less rightly excused on the ground that he neglected the excess of months above entire years. The same is to be said with equal right of Pollio also, besides the things we have already brought forward for weakening his authority, since he, as we have already shown above, likewise affirms that Valerian was captured in the sixth year of his reign. Hence it comes about that, this and the other things which I have already brought forward being weighed, I am not moved by the authority of Pollio, Victor On the Caesars and Eutropius to establish for certain, as Pagi did, that Valerian was captured by the Persians and led away into captivity in the year 259.

[250] But now let us discuss the argument which Pagi brings forward before all the rest, as neither by the argument which, from the election of a new Pontiff, and which seems to be the chief foundation of the opinion by which he attaches Valerian's captivity to the year 259. Thus at the year 259, number 10, he writes: Dionysius was created Pontiff at Rome on the twenty-second day of July, after the see had been vacant for almost a whole year; which rather long vacancy is to be ascribed to the persecution, and its end to be attributed to the captivity of Valerian. St. Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff, was crowned with martyrdom under Valerian in the year 258, on the 6th day of August, as you will find proved with us in volume 2 of August, §2 of the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of this holy Pontiff, and after the chair of St. Peter had been vacant for almost an entire year, Dionysius was substituted for him in the Pontificate; which therefore happened in the year 259; from which it follows that Pagi, in the words just recited, means that Valerian was already a captive among the Persians in that very year 259. But does this writer rightly conclude this from the election of a new Pontiff made at that time after a rather long vacancy of the see? This does not appear so to me at least. For it could be that, St. Sixtus having been taken from among the living, the election of a new Pontiff was deferred for a while on account of the persecution then raging more vehemently; and then, the persecution not yet indeed coming to an end, but nevertheless abating, was put into execution. Valerian, as is admitted by all the learned, and is easily drawn out from what Zosimus narrates of that emperor, was in the East in the year 259, and was wholly intent on fortifying the city of Antioch and preparing the expedition against the Persians, so that he then most probably pressed the persecution against the Christians less, and, it being accordingly without doubt greatly mitigated under Gallienus, who alone was living in Italy and is never read to have been very hostile to the Christians, the Romans obtained a fit time for creating a new Pontiff, even though the persecution had not then yet altogether ceased, that is, come to an end.

[251] made in the year 259, he repeats. After the martyrdom of St. Stephen the Pontiff, which happened when the persecution of Valerian was first begun, the Romans not long afterwards elected St. Sixtus as new Pontiff; and if they did this when the persecution had first arisen and was accordingly, as is likely, raging more savagely, there is no reason why it should be certainly concluded, from the fact that the election of a new Pontiff was made in the year 259 after a rather long vacancy of the see, that the persecution had been altogether calmed at the time when this happened. Moreover, after the death of Fabian, the Roman Pontiff, who obtained the palm of martyrdom at the beginning of the Decian persecution, the Roman See was vacant even longer, and at length St. Cornelius was elected new Pontiff while the persecution of Decius was still lasting. And this election of a new Pontiff after a rather long vacancy of the see is ascribed by Pearson in the Annales Cyprianici, and by other learned men, to the abating of the persecution arising from the absence of Decius, taken up with the Macedonian war against Lucius Priscus. Since, then, as I have already shown above, Valerian too was absent from Rome in the year 259, and hence the persecution most probably abated greatly, the Romans could use this opportunity to substitute a new Pontiff for Sixtus, dead now for almost a year. Pagi, therefore, did not rightly think, from the new election of a Pontiff made in the year 259 after a rather long vacancy of the see, that the persecution which Valerian had stirred up was then ended, and accordingly his opinion concerning fixing Valerian's captivity to the year 259 acquires absolutely no strength from the election of a new Pontiff made at that time, since this perhaps happened while Valerian's persecution was still lasting, and accordingly cannot, of Valerian as then led away into captivity, a certain

and undoubted indication. You now have, learned reader, the things from which you can consider whether Valerian's captivity should be joined rather with the year 259 or with the following one. I meanwhile, as I have already said, embrace Pearson's opinion, and in accordance with it shall henceforth review in chronological order the remaining matters concerning our Saint.

§ XXII. Whether Dionysius returned to Alexandria immediately after the captivity of Valerian.

Gallienus, not long after his father's captivity, From what we have already disputed in the preceding §, it appears most probable that Valerian's captivity happened in the year 260, and accordingly, since we have now abundantly discussed what we undertook above to discuss, the next thing is that we should now discuss with equal pace another matter which concerns our Saint more nearly, and which proposes for discussion whether he returned to Alexandria shortly after Valerian was captured by the Persians. Eusebius, in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 13, writes thus: Valerian having not long after been captured by the Barbarians and reduced to servitude, his son Gallienus, obtaining the empire alone, conducted himself more moderately, and, edicts having been sent, calmed the persecution set in motion against our people (the Christians); and in order that the prelates of our religion might henceforth discharge their office securely, he commanded by a rescript of this kind: The emperor Caesar P. Licinius Gallienus, pious, fortunate, august, to Dionysius, Pinna, Demetrius and the other bishops. We have commanded the indulgence of our benefit to be spread through the whole world; so that all may withdraw from the religious places. Wherefore you too can use the form of our rescript, so that no one may henceforth cause you trouble. And that which it is permitted you to carry out has long since been granted by me. Accordingly Aurelius Cyrenius, procurator of the treasury, will follow the form of the rescript given by us. This rescript or edict of Gallienus, given in favour of the Christians, which is inscribed to Dionysius and other bishops, was not issued immediately after the persecution of Valerian had ended. This is clear from these very words of the edict: Wherefore you too can use the form of our rescript, so that no one may henceforth cause you trouble. And that which it is permitted you to carry out has long since been granted by me: for since by these the emperor hints that he grants to the bishops to whom he directs his rescript exactly the same thing that he had long since granted to others, it follows that Gallienus did not give the aforesaid rescript or edict immediately after an end had been put to Valerian's persecution; for otherwise it would have to be said that the very same favour which is granted by the rescript just recited was granted to the Christians by Gallienus while the persecution was still lasting. And this is beyond all doubt foreign to the truth.

[253] Thus this rescript, which is inscribed to Dionysius and other bishops, restored peace to the Church; was most certainly not given except when Valerian's persecution had already for some while been calmed. But before this Gallienus had already issued another edict in favour of the Christians. Eusebius mentions this in the book and chapter just cited, writing thus: There is also another constitution of the same emperor (Gallienus) given to other bishops, in which he permitted them to recover the places of their cemeteries. Thus Eusebius: but, you will say, how can it be proved that this latter decree, which Eusebius mentions in the words just recited, preceded in time that which we have already transcribed here above in the very words in which it was given by Gallienus? Pearson, in the Annales Cyprianici at the year 260, number 5, says that Gallienus, when he had heard of his father's captivity, and knew that no hope of recovering him afterwards remained, restored full peace to the Christians, to whom he had never been gravely hostile. And he thinks that that emperor, before all things, issued the constitution which Eusebius records in the words just recited, and by which he permitted the bishops by imperial authority, since he now alone held the reins of empire, to recover the places of their cemeteries.

[254] All modern learned men agree with Pearson here, [yet Dionysius could not use the benefit of the peace; since at that time in Egypt] so that it does not seem to be doubted that within a few, that is perhaps six or five, months after Valerian's captivity Gallienus restored peace to the Church, having published in favour of the Christians the constitution which Eusebius, in book 7, chapter 13, mentions thus in the words just recited again: There is also another constitution of the same emperor (Gallienus) given to other bishops, in which he permitted them to recover the places of their cemeteries; for to go to these and to hold assemblies had been forbidden to all Christians from the very beginning of Valerian's persecution, as is understood from the Fragment of Dionysius's letter against Germanus in Eusebius, book 7, chapter XI. It ought therefore to be certain with all, and placed beyond controversy, what we have asserted concerning the peace restored to the Church by Gallienus not long after his father's captivity. But here now it is asked whether Alexandria enjoyed the benefit of the peace at once, so that Dionysius was then free to return there from his exile. There were not lacking those who believed that Dionysius returned from exile to Alexandria not long after Valerian's captivity, thinking, namely, that the benefit of the peace then granted to the Church by Gallienus extended itself to Egypt also. But truly they were greatly deceived; for that benefit of peace certainly extended itself only to those regions which Gallienus had under his rule at the time when he published the constitution just mentioned in favour of the Christians; and Egypt can by no means be counted among the regions which Gallienus then had under his rule. For Gallienus, as we have already shown, restored peace to the Church only when some, that is five or six, months had already elapsed after Valerian's captivity; whereas Macrianus, having seized the tyranny in Egypt already before, kept this region and some others under his power up to the second year, nor did Gallienus have any rule over them during that whole time, so that the churches situated in them could not yet enjoy the benefit of the peace.

[255] Macrianus, a most hostile enemy of the Christian name, the tyranny, The matter is certain and undoubted, provided only that Macrianus seized the tyranny in the East not long after Valerian's captivity and held it for more than one year. That Macrianus did this, then, I prove thus: Trebellius Pollio, in the book on the two Galliens, chapter 1, mention of Valerian's captivity having been set down first, after a few other things writes thus: Gallienus and Volusianus being consuls, then, Macrianus and Ballista come together, call together the remnants of the army, and, since the Roman empire in the East was tottering, they inquire whom they should make emperor, Gallienus acting so negligently that not even mention of him was made among the army. Finally, when several had come together for that purpose, it was resolved that they should proclaim Macrianus with his sons emperors, and that they should undertake to defend the commonwealth. From which words it is understood that Macrianus and Ballista deliberated on electing a new emperor, and that in fact Macrianus with his sons was taken up as emperor when the Roman empire in the East was tottering, so that Macrianus was created emperor, or rather seized the tyranny, not long after Valerian's captivity, since it was then that the Roman empire in the East most tottered. When the state of affairs, says Zosimus immediately after narrating Valerian's captivity, was such throughout the East, all things lay, as though destitute of a prince, confused and likewise undefended. The state of affairs of the Roman empire in the East was therefore, by the testimony of Zosimus, most disturbed immediately after Valerian's captivity, and accordingly the Roman empire in the East tottered most at that time, so that it was then that the assembly which Pollio records was held by Macrianus and Ballista, and the former of these was elected emperor. And indeed it does not appear likely that Macrianus, who, by the testimony of Dionysius in the letter to Hermammon in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 10, burned with the desire of ruling, did not seize at once, as soon as it could be done, the opportunity of occupying the empire which the disturbed order of affairs after Valerian's captivity offered. Moreover Macrianus and Ballista, when they deliberated on electing a new emperor, called together the remnants of the army (see the words just recited from Pollio); which is an indication that the army which Valerian had led against the Persians was then still dispersed, and accordingly that not much time had yet passed after the disaster which it had received from Valerian's captivity; so that from all these things it appears manifest that Macrianus seized the tyranny in the East and in Egypt not long after Valerian's captivity.

[256] But, you will say, Macrianus and Ballista deliberated on electing a new emperor seized, which is not weakened from Pollio, when Gallienus and Volusianus were consuls, as Trebellius Pollio testifies in the words recited above: and the consulship of Gallienus and Volusianus was not held before the year 261, and accordingly neither was there deliberation by Macrianus and Ballista on electing a new emperor before this year. Wherefore, since from what has already been disputed it is necessary that Valerian's captivity be established in the year 259 or rather in the year 260, it follows that Macrianus did not deliberate with Ballista on electing a new emperor, and seize the tyranny in the East and in Egypt, immediately after Valerian's captivity. I answer that that consulship of Gallienus and Volusianus has without doubt been stuffed into the cited passage of Pollio, transcribed here above, and that this is clearly proved by Pagi in the Critica at the year 259, number 12, from the fact that Macrianus, as he shows from a Greek coin, reached the second year of his reign, and this could not be found, since Macrianus, as is established from Dionysius's letter to Hermammon, perished in the ninth year of Gallienus, if Macrianus be established not to have begun his reign before the year 261. And indeed I could hardly persuade myself that Pollio, who writes that Valerian was captured by the Persians in the sixth year of his reign, was persuaded that it was only in the year 261, Gallienus and Volusianus being consuls, that the creation of a new emperor was treated by Macrianus and Ballista. For thus, since the sixth year of Valerian's reign coincides partly with the year 258 and partly with the year 259, nearly two years would have intervened between Valerian's captivity and the treatment undertaken on creating a new emperor; which it does not appear likely that Pollio thought. Go to the said Pagi in the place just cited, and you will find the whole matter explained at length. There is no reason, then, why on account of the consulship of Gallienus and Volusianus, by which the passage of Pollio, already cited more than once, is marked, we should defer to the year 261 the deliberation of Macrianus and Ballista on electing an emperor, or remove further from Valerian's captivity the time at which Macrianus seized the tyranny in the East and in Egypt.

[257] And since this is to be held so, and it accordingly remains fixed and the Christians, remitting nothing of his hatred against them, that Macrianus seized the tyranny in Egypt one or two months, or at least not much more, after Valerian's captivity, Gallienus beyond doubt did not have rule in that region at the time when he published the constitution mentioned above in favour of the Christians and restored peace to the Church. From which it follows that that prince, the benefit of peace which he granted to all the churches established under his rule, to Egypt

could not extend, and accordingly that our Saint was not free at that time to return from his exile to his church, by force, namely, of the constitution issued by Gallienus in favour of the Christians. Nor do I say this only, but also that Dionysius did not at all return to Alexandria at that time. For, as we have already shown, Macrianus was then master of affairs in Egypt, and remained master into the following year also; and since the Macrianus here mentioned is none other than that very patron of the Egyptian magicians who, as we have shown above, impelled the emperor Valerian to persecute the Christians, it is not to be thought that an enemy of the Christian name so hostile remitted anything at that time of the savagery of the persecution set in motion against the Christians; indeed it is most probable that he rather gave looser reins to the hatred he had conceived against the Christians. Certainly that Macrianus, having obtained the empire in the East and Egypt, also pressed the persecution set in motion by Valerian against the Christians, Pagi and other learned men gather from the martyrdom of Marinus, which Eusebius, in book 7, chapter 15, relates happened in the East at Caesarea Philippi, when peace had already been restored everywhere to all the churches, those, namely, subject to the rule of Gallienus, by the constitution of Gallienus issued not long after Valerian's captivity.

[258] most savagely, as is most probable; by himself But, you will say, Pollio, in the book on the two Galliens, chapter 1, after the words recited at number 255, a few things having been interposed, records these things of Macrianus: Macrianus, therefore, having gathered armies from every side, made for the parts of the East; and in order that he might be able to defend and protect widely the empire conferred on him, he so arranged the war and so prepared his forces as to be circumspect of all things that could be devised against him. The same Macrianus dispatched Piso, one of the noble leaders of the senate, to Achaia for this purpose, to crush Valens, who was governing the commonwealth there with proconsular authority. But Valens, having learned that Piso was coming against him, assumed the empire. Piso therefore withdrew into Thessaly. Where, very many soldiers having been sent by Valens, he was slain; he too having been called emperor, with the surname Thessalicus. But Macrianus, one of his sons having been retained in the East, affairs having nevertheless been pacified, came first to Asia, then made for Illyricum: in Illyricum he joined battle with Aureolus the emperor, who had assumed the empire against Gallienus, under a general named Domitian, having one of his sons with him, and leading thirty thousand soldiers. But Macrianus was conquered with his son named Macrianus, and the whole army was surrendered to Aureolus the emperor. Moreover the same Pollio, in the book on the thirty tyrants, chapter XI, writes thus: He (Macrianus) was therefore made emperor, with his two sons Macrianus and Quietus, all the soldiers being willing. And at once he began to come against Gallienus, affairs in the East being left somehow or other. From both these passages of Pollio taken together two things seem to be concluded; and the first of them is that Macrianus, as soon as he was created emperor, was so distracted by so great a mass of warlike affairs that, as appears, he could scarcely think of pressing the persecution against the Christians; the other, that the same Macrianus, having been made emperor, did not remain long in the East, so that he did not persecute the Christians very vehemently in Egypt, being absent from it. As regards the first, I answer that Macrianus was not so occupied with the business of war that he could not give a little time to framing severe laws against the Christians. It was certainly not a matter of any heavy effort to have the severe laws enacted by Valerian against the Christians put into execution through the prefects of cities and provinces, so that Macrianus, in accordance with his innate hatred against the Christians, most probably did this.

[259] and through others persecuted them: From this now flows what must be answered to the second point, concerning Macrianus's absence from Egypt. For Macrianus, although placed very far from Egypt and Alexandria, could have caused the Christians in Egypt to be most savagely persecuted through his prefects. Moreover, when he set out with the army from the East into Illyricum against Aureolus, he left one of his sons, namely Quietus, in the East, as is understood from the words of Pollio recited in the first place above, so that through him, although himself absent, he could easily have put into execution whatever the fury conceived against the Christians had dictated to him. And indeed the sons of Macrianus, of whom one was his father's namesake and the other had the name of Quietus, by no means needed paternal goads for this. For both were inflamed against the Christians with no less fury than their father. This is understood from the Fragment of our Saint's letter to Hermammon which Eusebius inserted in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 10, and which towards the end has thus concerning Macrianus and his children: Macrianus … burning with the desire of ruling, although unworthy of empire, since, being weak in body, he could not himself put on the royal apparel, set over the empire his two sons, who were to take over into themselves their father's crimes. For most evidently in them was fulfilled the prediction of God, who says: I am He who avenges the sins of parents on the children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. For, having transferred to the heads of his sons his depraved desires, which he himself had not been able to enjoy, he likewise poured into them his wickedness and his hatred of the divine majesty.

[260] Since, then, from these words, as I have already advised, [whence it is not to be suspected that Dionysius returned to Alexandria at that time.] it is understood that the sons of Macrianus burned with the utmost hatred against the Christians, there is no doubt that Quietus, whom his father had left in the East, most promptly and most accurately obeyed his father's commands against the Christians. Indeed the Saint asserts that Macrianus poured his wickedness and hatred of the divine majesty into his sons for no other reason, as it appears to me at least, than that they in fact most savagely persecuted the Christians. Macrianus's departure from the East into Illyricum, then, suggests nothing from which it would be right to suspect that the persecution of the Christians in Egypt abated somewhat after the tyranny had been seized by Macrianus, and accordingly that Dionysius returned to Alexandria not very long after Valerian's captivity. Furthermore, although the time during which Macrianus had rule in Egypt is not a fit one to which Dionysius's return from exile to Alexandria may be fixed, it is nevertheless most fit to be joined with the writing of the books which the Saint wrote on the Elenchus and Apologia, and which we have mentioned very often above. For Macrianus, as I have already shown, still ruled in Egypt in the year 261, and the affairs of the Christians there were in a disturbed state. Wherefore, since the aforesaid books (see number 164) were written after the year 260, and in a disturbed state of affairs (see number 161), their writing is certainly most fittingly coupled with the year 261, that is, with the time during which Macrianus ruled in Egypt: and although nothing certain stands in the way of its being deferred later, yet that it is not to be established later than either the year 261 or certainly 262 is rendered more probable by what I discussed at number 164. Let us now discuss about what year Dionysius at length returned from exile.

§ XXIII. Dionysius, Macrianus and his sons having been slain, returns to Alexandria, and discharges the part of an active pastor.

Macrianus and his sons Macrianus, not long after he had seized the tyranny in the East, with his son Macrianus, affairs in the East having been somehow composed, led out his army into Illyricum against Aureolus, who there, no otherwise than Macrianus in the East, had declared himself against the emperor Gallienus, and, battle having been joined with Aureolus either in Illyricum itself or on the borders of Thrace, was conquered with his son Macrianus, and at the same time slain. Trebellius Pollio teaches us all these things, partly in the book on the two Galliens, partly in the book on the thirty tyrants. The words in which he does so we have already brought into this Commentary at number 258, to which I therefore, studious reader, refer you. Furthermore the said Pollio teaches us not only that Macrianus with his son Macrianus was conquered and slain by the army of Aureolus shortly after he had assumed the empire; but also that the other son of Macrianus, named Quietus, did not survive his father and brother very long. For to the words already transcribed here at number 258 from the book on the two Galliens he subjoins these: The commonwealth meanwhile having been thrown into confusion, and the whole world utterly, when Odenathus learned that Macrianus had been slain with his son (Macrianus), that Aureolus was reigning, that Gallienus was acting more remissly, he hastened to the other son of Macrianus, since fortune was giving this army to be taken. But those who were with the son of Macrianus, named Quietus, agreeing with Odenathus, at the instigation of Macrianus's prefect Ballista, slew the youth, and, the body having been thrown over the wall, all surrendered themselves abundantly to Odenathus. So Macrianus and his two sons perished. And that this was done shortly after the tyranny had been assumed by Macrianus in the East is also understood from Dionysius's letter to Hermammon.

[262] in the year 261 For in this, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 23, he writes thus of Macrianus: And he indeed (Macrianus), having betrayed one of his emperors (Valerian, namely, since some relate that he was betrayed to the Persians by Macrianus), and having made war on the other (Gallienus) (usurping the empire in the East), shortly perished root and branch with his whole family. There is no doubt, then, that Macrianus and his two sons, after a short space of time had elapsed since the assumption of the empire, lost their reign together with their life. But since, these having been removed from the midst, Egypt passed, as we shall show, into the power of Gallienus, and then, peace having been restored by this emperor to the Alexandrian church, Dionysius at length returned from exile to Alexandria, it will help, in order that it may be determined in what year the Saint did this, to inquire into the year in which Macrianus and his sons were slain. Pagi, in the Critica at the year 261, number 12, writes thus: In this year Macrianus and his two sons Macrianus and Quietus were slain, and the Alexandrian church at length obtained the edict of peace from Gallienus. So the said Pagi, affirming that Macrianus and his two sons were slain in the year 261. And he proves this assertion of his from the fact that the death of Macrianus and his sons is mentioned in our Saint's letter to Hermammon, and this was written before the year 262, in which Gallienus celebrated the decennalia of his Augustal reign. But although it appears to me sufficiently certain that Macrianus and his two sons were slain in the year 261, the reason drawn by Pagi from St. Dionysius's letter to Hermammon by no means proves it. For that this letter was written before the year 262 is not certainly established, as will become evident from what is to be said; and this ought to be certainly established in order that it could be concluded from it that Macrianus and his two sons had already been killed in the year 261.

[263] Moreover, since Pagi establishes that Macrianus seized the tyranny one or two months after Valerian's captivity, and indeed about August of the year 259, having been killed, a second year of Macrianus's reign can be found even if he with his sons were placed as slain in the year 260, and accordingly I do not see for what reason Pagi, granted even that Macrianus was killed before the year 262, fixes his slaying undoubtingly to the year 261. On the opinion of those who attach Valerian's captivity to the year 260,

one must speak otherwise. For these cannot find a second year of Macrianus unless they establish that he was killed either in the year 261 or in the following one. Hence I, who have proposed to follow this latter opinion in arranging the deeds of our Saint, think that the slaying of Macrianus is to be attached to the year 261. For, as we shall say below, Aemilianus, the second invader of the Roman empire after Macrianus, seized the tyranny in Egypt before Easter of the year 262; and before this happened, Egypt, after the death of Macrianus and his sons, had already passed into the power of Gallienus, and he had granted peace to the churches of Egypt: and these things could not conveniently have happened between Easter of the year 262 and the slaying of Macrianus and his sons unless this is established to have happened in the year 261. Moreover the letter which Dionysius wrote to Hermammon, and of which Eusebius brought three different Fragments into the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, is more probably, as I shall prove below, to be counted among the Paschal letters of Dionysius, and accordingly was written some while (see what was said at number 140 of this Commentary) before Easter. Now since it was probably written, as I shall likewise prove below, in the year 262, and in it the slaughter of Macrianus and his sons is recorded as altogether recent, this seems to have preceded by some while the time at which the said letter was written, and so to have happened in the year 261, though perhaps when it had already nearly passed.

[264] We have, then, now the year in which Macrianus and his sons more probably perished. Odenathus, king of the Palmyrenes, occupied many provinces; Let us now consider whether after their slaughter Egypt at once passed into the power of Gallienus, so that it may thus become plain whether he could then grant peace to the Alexandrian church and the other churches situated in Egypt. Pollio, in the two Galliens, after the words transcribed here at number 261, records thus: Odenathus therefore was made emperor of almost the whole East, while Aureolus held Illyricum, Gallienus Rome. The same Ballista slew many of the people of Emesa, to whom the soldiers of Macrianus had fled, with Quietus and the keeper of the treasures, so that the city was almost destroyed. Odenathus meanwhile, as though acting on the side of Gallienus, caused all things to be reported to him truthfully. But Gallienus, having learned that Macrianus with his children had been slain, as though secure of affairs and as though his father had already been recovered, gave himself up to lust and pleasure. He gave Circensian games and scenic games, gymnastic games, also a sportive hunt and gladiatorial shows, and called the people as though on days of victory to festivity and applause. From these words someone will perhaps wish that Odenathus, king of the Palmyrenes, most celebrated among the writers of the Augustan History, occupied the regions of the East after the slaughter of Macrianus and his sons, and accordingly that Egypt did not at that time pass into the power of Gallienus. For since Pollio says by them that Odenathus caused whatever he had done to be reported truthfully to Gallienus as though he were acting on his side, he sufficiently hints that he did not really act on the side of Gallienus. And from this it seems to follow that Odenathus after the slaughter of Macrianus occupied the parts of the East not in the name of Gallienus but in his own, and meanwhile, while he caused his warlike deeds to be reported to him, deceived Gallienus. From which it further follows that Egypt did not at that time pass into the power of Gallienus.

[265] Egypt nevertheless into the power of Gallienus Whether Odenathus after the slaughter of Macrianus occupied the parts of the East in his own name alone, and subjected them to himself and not to Gallienus, there is no leisure to investigate more laboriously; nor indeed would it be worth the trouble. For at that time Odenathus occupied many provinces in the East, but not absolutely all. This is clear from these words of Pollio, just recited again: Odenathus therefore was made emperor of almost the whole East; where by the adverb almost the said Pollio sufficiently indicates that Odenathus did not then obtain the rule of all the regions of the East. Moreover, if not other provinces of the East, certainly Egypt passed after the death of Macrianus and his sons not into the power of Odenathus but into that of Gallienus. Our Saint teaches us this in the letter to Hermammon, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 23, writing thus: And he indeed (Macrianus), having betrayed one of his emperors and made war on the other, shortly perished root and branch with his whole family. But Gallienus was proclaimed and approved by the common consent of all; at once an old emperor and a new one; before them and surviving after them also: according to that which was said by Isaiah the prophet: The things that were from the beginning, behold, they have come; and new are the things that shall now arise. For as a cloud, passing under the rays of the sun, obscures its splendour for a short time and is seen substituted in its place; then, when it has passed by or melted away, the sun, which had risen before, seems to rise again as though new.

[266] passed, and then Dionysius to Alexandria So Macrianus, who had put himself forward and presently had moved himself up to the very rule of Gallienus, himself is no more; as indeed he was not before; but Gallienus remains like himself, and the same as before. Finally the principate itself, as though having laid aside old age and been purged of the filth of its former wickedness, now flourishes more vigorously, and is seen and heard farther, and is spread abroad in every direction. By which words Dionysius signifies not obscurely that at the time when he was writing this letter to Hermammon he exulted with joy, both on account of the tyranny of Macrianus having been driven off and on account of the empire having been restored to Gallienus. Wherefore, since Dionysius, as bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, would have had no cause for exulting so greatly with joy over Gallienus, a prince kind to the Christians, having been restored to the empire, if he had not recovered in Egypt the authority which he had formerly had with his father Valerian, it does not seem to be doubted that Gallienus, at the time when Dionysius was writing the said letter, had Egypt under his rule, so that this province, after the slaughter of Macrianus and his sons, since this happened not long before the writing of the aforesaid letter to Hermammon, without doubt passed into the power of Gallienus. Hence you will now easily draw out the time at which Dionysius returned to Alexandria from the exile into which he had been driven by Valerian. For the Saint, as we have already advised, returned there for the first time after the persecution of Valerian when Egypt came back under the dominion of Gallienus.

[267] Wherefore, since this, as we have shown, happened not long after the slaughter of Macrianus and his sons, having returned, he wrote the letter to Hermammon and this seems to be attached to the year 261, Dionysius most probably returned from exile to Alexandria either when the year 261 had already in great part elapsed, or certainly when the year 262 had just a little begun. And thus indeed we now have determined the time at which the Saint returned from exile to Alexandria. The order of events requires that we now treat of what the Saint did when restored to his flock. There is no doubt that Dionysius then diligently fulfilled all the parts of a vigorous and watchful pastor, namely restoring to the communion of the Church any whom the savagery of the persecution had perhaps separated from it by denying Christ, and removing from the midst any tares that had perhaps sprung up in the field of the Alexandrian church, less diligently cultivated through the long absence of the pastor. There is no doubt, I say, that Dionysius then performed all the things which you would deservedly require of a diligent, holy and watchful Pastor. But what or of what kind were the things which the Saint then did for the benefit of his flock is hidden from me through the scarcity of ancient monuments. Hence, since I do not care to proceed here by conjectures, I now record only two things as done by the Saint at that time. The one concerns the letter, already often cited, which the Saint wrote to Hermammon, a bishop of Egypt; the other regards the council perhaps celebrated at Alexandria by Dionysius against the Sabellians, as I showed at number 144. This, if it was ever in fact celebrated, ought most probably to be referred to the time at which the Saint had first returned from exile to Alexandria; and the said letter was beyond all doubt written by Dionysius when he had not long returned from his exile to Alexandria. Both of these are to be proved. I begin with the letter.

[268] That it was written at that time we learn from the very words of the same letter. [more probably to be attached to the year 262. This, after a rare formula of speaking,] For Dionysius in it, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 23, has these words: And again it comes to me to contemplate the years of our emperor. For I see that those most impious ones, who were once so celebrated, shortly afterwards became most obscure. But the most religious and most God-loving emperor (Gallienus), having passed through the seven-year circle, is passing the ninth year of his reign, in which let us celebrate the feasts (the Paschal ones, namely). From which words it is plain that the said letter to Hermammon was written in the ninth year of the reign of Gallienus. Wherefore, since this year of Gallienus without doubt coincides partly with the year 261 and partly with the year 262, as you will easily gather from what has been disputed above, it is necessary that the said letter was composed in one or the other of these two years, and accordingly at the time when peace had already been restored by Gallienus to the churches of Egypt also, and Dionysius had returned from exile to Alexandria. And thus indeed we now have two years, in one of which the said letter was most certainly written. But, you will say, can it not also be defined in what determinate year it was composed? I answer: it was more probably written in the year 262, as I have here proposed to prove; but before I do so, since these words of our Saint concerning Gallienus in the letter to Hermammon, recited just now, but the most religious and most God-loving emperor, having already passed through the seven-year circle, is passing the ninth year of his reign, in which we are about to celebrate the feasts, or rather, as it is in the Greek, let us celebrate, contain a very rare and unusual formula of speaking, at least in appearance, I wish something to be observed here first concerning it.

[269] which it exhibits, and which Pagi and Pearson Pagi, in the Critica at the year 261, number 13, writes thus: Those forty-two months (designated by the prophecy of John, of which more than once above) end in this year (261, namely) with the death of Macrianus and his sons. For through so many months Egypt and Alexandria were vexed; for of them alone Dionysius speaks; not of the persecution of the Church in general, as that passage is commonly explained by all. Pearson, however, who held that common opinion, explained excellently the said words of Dionysius, but the most religious and most God-loving etc. Who, he says, ever spoke so that one should be said after a septennium to be already passing the ninth year? It is necessary that that seven-year period designates something else peculiar, and different from the time which followed afterwards. And it is that of the reign which he had administered with his father. As Victor says: He reigned fifteen years, with his father seven, alone eight. But he is mistaken in what he subjoins, namely that Gallienus had passed beyond the septennium, and that in the eighth year of his reign Macrianus obtained the imperial honour, especially in Egypt. Thus far Pagi, indicating that he goes over most readily to the opinion by which Pearson holds that by the seven-year circle, after which Gallienus is said by our Saint in the letter to Hermammon to be passing the ninth year of his reign, the years

are established to be understood as the seven during which Gallienus held the empire with his father Valerian. But I do not think one should agree with this opinion of Pagi and Pearson, nor do I see how Pagi, since he follows it, can contend against Pearson, in the words just recited, that the time during which Gallienus held the empire with his father Valerian did not pass beyond a septennium. For Dionysius, in the letter just cited again, says that Gallienus is passing the ninth year of his reign after he has already passed through the seven-year circle. Wherefore, if by this circle, as Pagi admits, are to be understood the years during which Gallienus held the empire with his father, the words of Dionysius recited above have this sense: Gallienus, having already passed seven years with his father, is passing the ninth year of his reign; whence, since it is thus clearly signified that Gallienus ruled with his father beyond seven years, it follows that Pagi wrongly contends against Pearson that the time during which Gallienus held the empire with his father did not pass beyond a septennium. Rightly, then, and consistently with the opinion by which he had established that by the seven-year circle of years mentioned by Dionysius the years of Gallienus ruling with his father are to be understood, Pearson committed to writing that the time during which Gallienus held the empire with his father passed beyond seven years.

[270] seem to explain wrongly, But since nevertheless Gallienus, as is manifest from the writers of the Augustan History and from what we have already disputed above, ruled with his father Valerian only seven years, and those incomplete, it follows from this that by the seven-year circle of years, after which, when it has been completed, Dionysius writes in the letter to Hermammon, in the words recited above, that Gallienus is passing the ninth year of his reign, the years during which Gallienus held the empire with his father cannot be understood, and accordingly that that unusual and rare formula of speaking of our Saint must be explained in an altogether different manner from that in which Pearson, and after him Pagi, thought it was to be explained. I conceive the matter thus: Dionysius in his letter to Hermammon, before those words already transcribed here above, in which he writes that Gallienus, the seven-year circle having been completed, is passing the ninth year of his reign, had without doubt treated of the years during which some predecessors of Gallienus had held the empire. It is right to gather this from the said letter itself. For in it the Saint, a little before the words in which he says that Gallienus, after the seven-year circle has already been completed, is passing the ninth year of his reign, writes thus: And again it comes to me to contemplate the days of the imperial years: Eusebius indeed, in the version of Valois, has thus: And again it comes to me to contemplate the years of our emperor (Gallienus, namely), from which words it only follows that Dionysius had already before spoken in his letter to Hermammon of the years of Gallienus, not also of those of other emperors. But the matter is expressed in the Greek text in this manner: Καὶ μοι πάλιν τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν βασιλικῶν ἐτῶν ἔπεισι σκοπεῖν, which Greek words, as will be plain to one who considers it, correspond exactly to these Latin ones, just given here again: And again it comes to me to contemplate the days of the imperial years. Wherefore, since Dionysius presently subjoins to these: For I see that those most impious ones (the emperors, namely, of whom he had spoken previously), who were once so celebrated, shortly afterwards became most obscure, he indicates sufficiently openly, as it appears to me at least, by the said words, that he had already before treated of the years during which some predecessors of Gallienus had held the empire.

[271] And not only of these, but also of the fewness of those same years the Saint had probably made discourse before. a better one, as appears, For I see (he says) that those most impious ones, who were once so celebrated, shortly afterwards became most obscure; and before he committed these words to writing he had already likened Macrianus to a cloud, which, presently intercepting the rays of the sun, shortly afterwards vanishes dissipated by the sun. Moreover he had brought forward some other things by which he hinted that the reign of Macrianus had been very short. Hence it becomes likely to me that Dionysius, in his letter to Hermammon, of which Eusebius exhibits only Fragments, likewise discoursed, before the said formula of speaking, on the fewness of the years during which some other predecessors of Gallienus, namely Gallus, Decius and Valerian, had held the empire, and said that not even one of those predecessors of Gallienus completed the seventh year of his reign. These things being set down, then, anyone, as far as I think, will now easily understand how that rare and unusual formula of speaking of Dionysius, But the most religious and most God-loving emperor, having already passed through the seven-year circle, is passing the ninth year of his reign, in which we are about to celebrate the feasts, how, I say, this formula of speaking exhibits nothing at all absurd, even if by the seven-year circle are not understood the years during which Gallienus held the empire with his father Valerian. For these words, But the most religious etc., together with the preceding ones, which (if only Eusebius had brought into his Ecclesiastical History the entire letter of Dionysius to Hermammon, and not only its Fragments) would probably reveal that, according to what has already been said, not even one of some predecessors of Gallienus completed the seventh year of his reign, make this perfect and altogether elegant sense: Decius, Gallus, Valerian and Macrianus, most impious emperors, ruled for a very short space of time, nor did one of them complete the seventh year of his reign; but the most religious and most God-loving emperor, the seventh having already been completed, that is, having already passed through the seven-year circle, is passing the ninth year.

[272] explained in a sense, In which sense certainly, as it appears to me at least, absolutely nothing occurs which argues an unusual or absurd formula of speaking, unless perhaps someone should wish that I would not rightly say: Not even one of Peter's brothers completed the tenth year of his life; but Peter, having already passed the tenth, is passing the fifteenth. Thus that rare formula of speaking concerning the years of Gallienus which our Saint employed has a sense by no means absurd, even if Dionysius be established not to have spoken with it of the septennium during which Gallienus governed the Roman empire with his father Valerian, so that, since an explanation of this kind, as I have already hinted, is opposed by the letter to Hermammon itself, recourse also need not be had to it, and it seems rather to be held that Dionysius used that formula of speaking, already very often cited, in order to insinuate more openly the comparison which he draws between the longer reign of Gallienus and the shorter reign of the other emperors, namely Decius, Gallus, Valerian and Macrianus. But let what has been said suffice concerning the explanation to be fitted to the words of Dionysius which indicate that Gallienus, after a septennium already completed, is passing the ninth year of his reign. I return to the discussion of the time at which the aforesaid letter to Hermammon was written by Dionysius. It was beyond all doubt written, as we have already shown, in the ninth year of the reign of Gallienus, that is, since Gallienus began his reign in the year 253, about the month of May, either in the last eight months of the year 261 or in the first four months of the year 262. But it was more probably, as I have already hinted, written in the first four months of the year 262. For Dionysius, in the aforementioned letter to Hermammon, expressing in which year Gallienus was reigning at the time when he was writing it, says: Νῦν ἐνιαυτὸν ἔνατον διανύει, that is, now he is not, as it is in Valois, passing or spending the ninth year, but completing or fulfilling it. Wherefore, since according to these words Dionysius wrote the said letter to Hermammon at the time when the ninth year of Gallienus's reign was already verging to its end, or was nearly completed, it rightly follows that it was written in the first four months, or in one of the first four months, of the year 262; for if it had been written earlier, it does not seem that it could have been said by Dionysius that Gallienus, at the time when it was written, had nearly completed or fulfilled the ninth year of his reign.

[273] among the Paschal letters of Dionysius Indeed, that this letter to Hermammon was written not only in one of the first four months of the year 262, but about two months before Easter of the same year, will turn out more probable from what is to be said. Certainly nothing stands in the way of its being believed to have been written then, and it was in fact then without doubt written (see what was said at number 140 of this Commentary), if it is to be counted among the Paschal letters of Dionysius. In order, then, that it may become known whether it was in fact then written, it is pleasing to investigate whether it was composed by Dionysius concerning the celebration of the Paschal feast. Dionysius, in this letter of which we treat here, in Eusebius, book 7, towards the end of chapter 23, writes thus of Gallienus: Νῦν ἐνιαυτὸν ἔνατον διανύει, ἐν ᾧ ἡμεῖς ἑορτάσωμεν, that is, now he is completing the ninth year, in which let us celebrate the feasts, not, as Valois renders, we are about to celebrate. By which words Dionysius seems to exhort Hermammon to celebrate the Paschal feasts, so that the letter which he wrote to him seems to have been Paschal. Tillemont indeed says, in volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 660, in the Notes on Dionysius of Alexandria, that it is not certainly proved from the words just recited that the said letter was Paschal, since Dionysius by ἑορτάσωμεν perhaps only exhorted Hermammon to rejoice with him and give thanks to God for the peace at length restored to the churches of Egypt also. I readily agree with Tillemont that the matter is not made certain from the said words; for I do not think it can certainly be proved, either from them or by any other reason, that Dionysius's letter to Hermammon is undoubtedly to be counted among the Saint's Paschal letters. Yet that it was Paschal appears to me for this reason, that, although not certainly, it was nevertheless probably exhortatory to celebrating Pascha. For the verb ἑορτάζειν, set down barely and by itself, does not seem to be employed by Dionysius elsewhere also except when he makes discourse of celebrating the Paschal feast, so that, since in the letter to Hermammon he says ἑορτάσωμεν, he seems to exhort to celebrating the Paschal feast, and accordingly it appears that it is to be counted among the Paschal letters of Dionysius.

[274] But, says Tillemont in the place just cited, we already have another Paschal letter for the year 262, whatever Tillemont may oppose to the contrary, inscribed by Dionysius (of Alexandria, namely) to Hierax; and accordingly we cannot say that the letter to Hermammon is also a Paschal letter, unless we overturn what we have established with Valois, that any Paschal letter (written, namely, by Dionysius of Alexandria) is the indication of a new year; nor have we any reason to depart from this rule, which brings so much help to the chronology and history of our Saint (Dionysius of Alexandria). So the said Tillemont; but the Paschal letter which Dionysius gave to Hierax, a bishop of Egypt, belongs not to the year 262 but to the following. For Eusebius, in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 21, writes thus: After these things, peace having scarcely been restored, he (Dionysius, namely) returned to Alexandria. But when sedition and war had again arisen there, so that he could not address all the brethren of that city, as being drawn apart into one or the other side of the sedition, again, on the very day of Pascha, he addresses them by letters from the city of Alexandria, as though an exile. Certainly in another Paschal letter, which a little afterwards, or rather, as the Greek

has it, afterwards composed to Hierax, one of the bishops of Egypt, he makes mention of that sedition which was stirred up at that time at Alexandria; Dionysius of Alexandria, namely. From which words it is understood that the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax was not written except when the Saint had already returned from exile to Alexandria and a new sedition had arisen there. Wherefore, since this sedition, recorded by Eusebius in the words just recited, arose in the year 262, as I shall show below, and the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax was composed after the Easter of the year in which the same sedition arose, as you will easily gather from the words of Eusebius, there is no doubt that the writing of this letter belongs to the year 263, so that the argument which Tillemont forms, in order to strike the letter to Hermammon out of the number of the Paschal letters, from the year 262, to which he thought the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax pertained, loses all its force.

[275] is shown to be able to be counted, Nothing, then, has so far occurred to compel us to depart from the opinion by which we have established that Dionysius's letter to Hermammon was probably Paschal. Pagi, in the Critica at the year 261, number 12, writes thus of the said letter to Hermammon: That letter (to Hermammon) was therefore written in the present year (261, namely), in which Gallienus began the ninth year of his reign. For it was not, as Baronius believed, given in the following year (262, namely); because, as we shall see, Gallienus in the year 262 celebrated the decennalia of his Augustal reign, of which mention is made under the name of the feast in the cited place, and this letter was composed before that feast. The place which Pagi here indicates as cited by himself before is none other than that very one, likewise often cited by us from Dionysius's letter to Hermammon, in which Dionysius writes thus of Gallienus: He is passing, or rather (see what was said at number 272) completing, the ninth year of his reign, in which let us celebrate the feasts; and since Pagi says in the words just recited that in this place mention is made under the name of the feast of the Decennalia celebrated by Gallienus in the year 262, he beyond all doubt means that in the aforesaid letter Dionysius does not treat of celebrating the Paschal feasts, and accordingly he opposes us, who enumerate it among the Paschal letters of Dionysius. But Pagi's opinion, by which he thought that mention is made by Dionysius in the letter to Hermammon of the decennalia celebrated by Gallienus in the year 262, seems to me by no means to be approved. For the Saint, in the aforesaid place of the letter to Hermammon, accurately translated from the Greek idiom into Latin, as we have shown above, exhorts to celebrating the feasts; and it appears little likely that Hermammon was spurred by the Saint to celebrating the decennalia of Gallienus. Dionysius, then, in the aforesaid place probably makes no mention of the decennalia under the name of the feast, and accordingly, although Pagi undoubtedly opposes us, who count Dionysius's letter to Hermammon among the Paschal letters, he nevertheless brings forward nothing by which he could certainly convict us of error. Pagi followed the version of Eusebius prepared by Valois; and since according to this Dionysius, although wrongly from what has been said, does not in the aforesaid place exhort Hermammon to celebrate the feasts, Pagi could more easily be led to think that mention is made in it of the decennalia of Gallienus.

[276] and hence it is confirmed that it was written in the year 262, However that may be, all the things having been weighed which we have brought forward against our opinion concerning Dionysius's letter to Hermammon, we still judge this likely; nor does it hinder anything that Eusebius nowhere marks that letter with the name of a Paschal letter; for this writer does not enumerate all the Paschal letters that Dionysius wrote, so that the letter written to Hermammon can have a place among these, although it is nowhere pointed out by Eusebius with the name of a Paschal letter. Furthermore, since this letter is probably, according to what has already been said, to be enumerated among the Paschal letters of Dionysius, we have from this another argument by which to establish that it was written in the year 262. For since, according to what was said above, it was written either towards the end of the year 261 or in the year 262, and accordingly cannot be Paschal except by reason of the Pascha which was celebrated in the year 262, it follows that it was composed two months or a little more before the Easter of the year 262; for a Paschal letter, as marking the beginning of Lent and at the same time the Paschal time, had to precede the Paschal festivity by so much space of time. And thus indeed we now have that Dionysius, after he had returned from exile to Alexandria, wrote the letter to Hermammon, which was probably Paschal, and that this was done by him not in the year 261 but at the beginning of the year 262, as appears more probable. Let us now see what the Saint accomplished besides immediately after his return to Alexandria.

[277] That Dionysius celebrated a synod at Alexandria against Sabellius and his followers, in which also the council of Alexandria, if it ever took place, was celebrated. and in it condemned Sabellius, we asserted as most probable at number 144 of this Commentary; but the time at which the Saint did this, or could have done it, I have not yet anywhere defined, and yet I promised at number 164 that I would do this when I was about to treat of Dionysius's return from exile to Alexandria. In order, then, to discharge my promise, I now inquire into the year in which the said synod could have been celebrated by Dionysius, if only he ever celebrated it, or in fact was celebrated. The Sabellian heresy, as I showed at number 143, took its beginning either when the persecution of Valerian had already arisen, or a little before. Wherefore, since it is not credible that Dionysius at once, no kinder way having been tried, applied the severer ecclesiastical penalties against Sabellius and his followers, it appears certain that Dionysius, even the beginning of the Sabellian heresy being placed a little before the persecution of Valerian, did not celebrate at Alexandria, before the beginning of the said persecution of Valerian, a council against it in which he condemned and deposed Sabellius. Furthermore, since Dionysius, as we have already shown before, was driven into exile immediately at the very beginning of Valerian's persecution, and did not return to Alexandria before the year 261 had already in great part elapsed, or the beginning of the year 262, he most certainly could not celebrate the aforementioned synod before one or the other of these two years, and accordingly also did not celebrate it. It remains, then, that he celebrated it either in the year 261 or 262, or even in a later one. This last appears to me less likely. For the pastoral care of the Saint, by which he would have wished to meet most swiftly the creeping evil of heresy, altogether persuades me that he celebrated a council against Sabellius as soon as it could be done, so that the Saint most probably did this either in the year 261 or in the year 262, since he had then returned to Alexandria, and the church there enjoyed full peace. But if one should wish to establish that this was done by the Saint in the year 262 rather than 261, the beginning of the said year 262 must be chosen, since after this affairs at Alexandria, being disturbed again, did not give an opportune time for celebrating a council, as we are now about to see in the following §.

§ XXIV. A new sedition arises at Alexandria, with war, and then plague: the Saint's Paschal letters concerning these.

A new sedition at Alexandria, Dionysius, having returned from exile to Alexandria after peace had been restored to the churches of Egypt, was not permitted to be quiet very long. For when he had not yet, as appears, applied sufficient effort, according to his wishes, to composing and restoring to their former state the affairs of his church, which the long persecution had disturbed not a little, a new sedition suddenly broke out at Alexandria, and from it, unexpectedly, war. After these things, says Eusebius in book 7, chapter 21, in words recited already before, peace having scarcely been restored, he (Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria) returned to Alexandria. But when sedition and war had again arisen there, so that he could not address all the brethren of that city, as being drawn apart into one or the other side of the sedition, again, on the very day of Pascha, he addresses them by letters from the city of Alexandria, as though an exile. Neither the writers of the Augustan History nor others teach us expressly what sedition it was at that time that threw Egypt and Alexandria into new calamities of war. It appears certain, however, that it did not draw its origin from the tyranny seized by Macrianus in the East. For the sedition which is recorded in the words just recited from Eusebius did not arise except when Dionysius, as you will easily gather from those very words, had already returned from exile to Alexandria. Wherefore, since Dionysius, according to what we have already disputed above, did not return from exile to Alexandria except when the tyranny which Macrianus had seized in the East had already ended, there is no doubt that the sedition which is recorded by Eusebius in the words recited above as having arisen at Alexandria after the return of Dionysius is altogether different from a sedition which someone might contend was made at Alexandria when the tyranny had been seized by Macrianus in the East.

[279] which with that of which notice is here given from Pollio Hence it now also follows that the disturbances which the sedition that arose at Alexandria after the return of Dionysius stirred up are beyond doubt different from the disturbances to which the tyranny seized by Macrianus gave occasion there. But, you will say, what at length is that sedition which is recorded by Eusebius in the words recited above, and which again involved Alexandria in new disturbances of war? Trebellius Pollio, in the book on the Thirty tyrants, chapter 21, committed these things to writing: And this is familiar to the Egyptians, that, as though raving and mad, they are led on from any trifles whatever to perils of the highest commonwealth. Often, on account of neglected salutations, a place in the baths not yielded, meat and vegetables sequestered, servile shoes and other such things, they have come even to the utmost peril of the commonwealth through sedition, so that armies were armed against them. With their familiar fury, therefore, when one day a slave of a certain curator who was then governing Alexandria had been beaten by a soldier for this reason, that he said his slippers were better than the soldier's, a multitude having gathered came to the house of Aemilianus the general, in doubtful mood, and pursued him with every instrument and fury of sedition. He was struck with stones, assailed with iron, nor was any weapon of sedition wanting. By which Aemilianus, compelled, assumed the empire, since he knew that he must perish on every side. The Egyptian army agreed with him, chiefly out of hatred of Gallienus; nor was vigour for ruling the commonwealth lacking to him. For he traversed the Thebaid and the whole of Egypt, and, as far as he could, removed the nations of the barbarians by his strong authority. Finally he was called Alexander, or Alexandrinus (for this too is held uncertain), by the merit of his virtues. And when he was preparing an expedition against the Indians, the general Theodotus having been sent at the command of Gallienus, he paid the penalty; since he is said to have been strangled in prison after the manner of the old captives.

[280] seems to have been one and the same, So thus far Trebellius Pollio, narrating a most grievous sedition arisen at Alexandria from a trivial cause, and the war that followed from it, especially, namely, when Theodotus, the general of Gallienus, led an army against Aemilianus, and, battle having been joined, conquered him, captured him, and sent him alive to Gallienus. At the same time, says the said Pollio in the book on the two Galliens, Aemilianus assumed the empire in Egypt,

and, having seized the granaries, oppressed many towns with the evil of famine. But Theodotus, the general of Gallienus, a conflict having been held, captured him, and sent him to the emperor Gallienus. Which words the said Pollio commits to writing concerning the empire assumed by Aemilianus in Egypt immediately after narrating the slaughter of Macrianus and his sons, so that even from this order of narration it is right to gather that Aemilianus did this neither before nor long after the tyranny of Macrianus in the East had come to an end. Moreover, since Pollio, after narrating the slaughter of Macrianus, interposes only a few things concerning the depraved morals of Gallienus, and presently (see the words just recited) subjoins that at the same time Aemilianus assumed the empire in Egypt, he sufficiently indicates that this happened not long after the tyranny of Macrianus, the tyrant and his sons having been removed from the midst, had been extinguished in the East. Wherefore, since likewise not long after the slaughter of Macrianus the sedition which Eusebius records in the words recited above, book 7, chapter 21, happened at Alexandria, it does not seem to be doubted that this is one and the same with the sedition on the occasion of which Trebellius Pollio relates, in the words transcribed here in the preceding number, that Aemilianus assumed the empire in Egypt. Thus, then, we now have what and of what kind was the sedition which, when Dionysius had returned to Alexandria, blazed out there anew and stirred up war and very many disturbances.

[281] It is now pleasing to inquire into the year in which it arose. arose in the year 262, It has already been said that it happened not very long after the slaughter of Macrianus, and this is the common opinion of the learned to this day. Since, then, Macrianus, as we have shown above, perished without doubt when the year 261 was already advanced, it seems necessary that this sedition of which we treat here broke out at Alexandria either when the year 261 itself had almost elapsed, or at least not very long after. Pagi in the Critica, and very many other learned men, as far as it is right to gather from what they write concerning that matter, judge with almost unanimous consent that the aforementioned sedition most probably happened before the Easter which immediately followed Dionysius's return from exile to Alexandria. Wherefore, since Dionysius, as we have shown above, returned from exile to Alexandria either when the year 261 had already advanced almost to its end, or when the year 262 had only begun, it follows that the said sedition happened after the Easter of the year 261 and before the Easter of the year 262. Furthermore, since Dionysius, as you will easily gather from what we have already disputed above, having returned to Alexandria after the slaughter of Macrianus, seems to have enjoyed there the wished-for peace for a space of some months, during which he wrote his letter to Hermammon, already mentioned before, and did some other things for the benefit of his flock, it appears most probable to me that the aforementioned sedition arose only a very short space of time before the Easter of the year 262, and that on the very day of Easter of the year 262 it had already blazed out so vehemently that, as Eusebius teaches in the words recited above, book 7, chapter 21, Dionysius could not address the Christians established at Alexandria for this reason, that all were drawn apart into one or the other side of the sedition, and he was accordingly compelled to address them by letters, contrary to what he had otherwise been accustomed to do. For Dionysius was accustomed to direct Paschal letters every year to the Christians dispersed through his patriarchate and far distant from Alexandria; but on the Paschal days themselves to speak to the people established at Alexandria not by letters, but by living voice, as is understood from the chapter of Eusebius just cited.

[282] in a miserable state, by Dionysius in a letter in which he betrays his charity, Furthermore, the time at which the aforesaid sedition broke out at Alexandria having now been defined as nearly as could be done, it remains that we now say a few things about the sedition itself. How grievous it was it is right to gather in some fashion from what Trebellius Pollio handed down to memory concerning it in the words transcribed here at number 279. But Dionysius, after the Easter of the year 262, and accordingly some while after that sedition had arisen, wrote a Paschal letter to Hierax, a bishop of Egypt; and in this the Saint graphically depicts the most miserable state into which Alexandria had been thrown by that sedition. Immediately from the very beginning of the letter he most openly betrays the ardent charity with which he was held towards his flock. He calls, namely, the Christians committed to his care his very own bowels, and uses other modes of speaking which could proceed only from a pastor inflamed with the highest charity towards his flock. I transcribe here the Saint's very words, extant in Eusebius, book 7 of the History, chapter 21. But what wonder, he says, if it is grievous and difficult for me to address men farther removed even by letters, when I can neither easily speak with myself nor take counsel for my own soul. For to my own very bowels, to my companions and like-minded brethren and fellow citizens of the same church, I need to send letters, and I can scarcely find how to transmit them. For one could more easily go, I will not say outside the borders of the province, but from the East to the farthest regions of the West, than from Alexandria itself to proceed to Alexandria. So Dionysius, showing at once his ardent charity towards the Christians established at Alexandria and the most miserable state of the city of Alexandria.

[283] graphically depicted, held Alexandria for about ten months, He then adds more things by which he places this before the eyes no less clearly than by the preceding. These, as not serving my purpose, and easily met with by the studious reader in Eusebius in the place just cited, I pass over for brevity's sake. Concerning the aforesaid sedition, or concerning the miserable state into which it threw the city of Alexandria, I note only this besides, that it was not a very brief one; but that it held about an entire year. For it took its beginning, as I have already shown, before the Easter of the year 262; and the words just transcribed here from the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax most openly reveal that that sedition still lasted when Dionysius was writing the said letter to Hierax, so that the Alexandrian sedition held for almost an entire year, if the letter to Hierax was written not long before the Easter of the year 263: and that it was written not very long before the Easter of the year 263 I show thus: it was written beyond all doubt, as everyone will easily gather from what has been disputed, after the Easter of the year 262; wherefore, since it is numbered among the Paschal letters of Dionysius, it was without doubt Paschal for the year 263, and accordingly (see number 140 of this Commentary) Dionysius most certainly indicated by it on what day Lent was to be begun in that year, as also on what day Pascha was to be celebrated. Now since a letter of this kind, as the forerunner of Lent and of Pascha, had to be written some while before Pascha, it follows that the aforesaid Paschal letter to Hierax was composed some while before the Easter of the year 263, that is, about two months before that time, and accordingly that the Alexandrian sedition, of which mention is made in it as still lasting, held for almost an entire year, that is, for about ten months.

[284] But, you will say, did it not also last much longer? and a plague then arising there, I answer that it does not seem to have lasted up to the year 264. For Eusebius, after reciting in the chapter just cited the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax, presently subjoins in the following chapter another Paschal letter of the Saint, written to the Christians when a plague had arisen at Alexandria after the war. Wherefore, since in the judgment of Valois, Tillemont and other learned men any new Paschal letter of Dionysius is the indication of a new year, that letter which was written after the war seems to have been Paschal for the year 264, and accordingly written at the beginning of that year, so that, since in it the Alexandrian sedition is indicated to have been calmed at the time when it was written, it seems certain that this did not hold up to the year 264. Furthermore, Eusebius prefaces the said Paschal letter, which he transcribes after reciting the letter to Hierax, with these words: A plague having followed after the war, when the Paschal solemnity was approaching, Dionysius again addressed the brethren by letters, in which he describes the magnitude of that calamity. He then subjoins the aforementioned Paschal letter, written after the plague had arisen at Alexandria, or rather a Fragment of it. The beginning of the letter, truly very elegant, is framed in these words: To other men indeed this present time may not seem to be a time of festivity. Nor indeed is there for them a time, neither this which is celebrated by us, nor any other, I will not say of those things which are mournful, but even of those which are thought most joyful and cheerful. Now indeed certainly all things are full of lamentations, all mourn, and on account of the multitude of men dead and daily dying the whole city resounds round about with groans. For altogether as it is found written in the sacred Letters of the firstborn of the Egyptians, so now also a huge cry has been raised. For there is no house in which there is not some death; and would that there were only one in each house.

[285] Thus far Dionysius, whose other words in the said letter in Eusebius, in the place cited, I pass over for brevity's sake. concerning whose duration some things Let it suffice to comprise in a compendium what the Saint treats in them. Yet before I do so, it is pleasing to have observed a few things both concerning the Paschal letter itself, just mentioned, and concerning the plague on the occasion of which it was written. St. Jerome, on the illustrious Writers of the Church, chapter 69, enumerates among the letters composed by Dionysius one which he inscribes On Mortality, and thus openly reveals that it was written on mortality. It appears likely to me that this letter mentioned by Jerome is not distinct from the Paschal letter just mentioned here, since it was both written after the plague or mortality arose at Alexandria, and records many things concerning the plague or mortality. Furthermore, the plague of which this letter treats is to be distinguished in a certain respect from the plague which, as we have shown above, began to rage under Decius, the beginning having been made nearly at the city of Alexandria. For although the plague which began to rage at Alexandria under Decius afflicted the Roman empire for fifteen continuous years, as we have shown, this is nevertheless not to be taken as though the plague raged in each city of the empire for as many continuous years with absolutely no intermission made. There were cities which in that space of fifteen years were afflicted by the plague twice or thrice or even four times, at interrupted intervals; yet I find no city on which this most savage evil raged without any intermission for fifteen continuous years. Thus the plague which arose at Alexandria under Decius may have raged there for some while, and indeed longer than in other cities, and afterwards remitted somewhat of its savagery for a time, and then again in the year 264 raged with no less savagery than under Decius, so that, account being taken of Alexandria alone, the plague which began to rage at Alexandria under Decius beyond doubt

is in a certain sense to be distinguished from the plague which raged in that city in the year 264.

[286] are observed here, Nor let anyone think, from what has already been said, that this most savage plague, which most miserably afflicted the Roman empire for fifteen continuous years and bereft it of an almost infinite multitude of men, raged in the city of Alexandria only twice, namely once under Decius and once under Gallienus. For it appears that between the plague mentioned at length by us at number 59 and following of this Commentary, which was begun at Alexandria under Decius and then continued for some while under Gallus, and the plague arisen at Alexandria under Gallienus, on the occasion of which Dionysius wrote the Paschal letter mentioned here in the latter place, a huge number of mortals perished at Alexandria at interrupted intervals, both by the plague, which raged at Alexandria more and longer than elsewhere, and by other kinds of diseases; so that that most savage evil seems to have raged in this city more than once or twice within the space of fifteen years during which it afflicted the Roman empire. It is right to gather this from the Paschal letter of Dionysius to Hierax, cited above. For in this the Saint, after narrating the calamities of war which arose at Alexandria from the sedition on the occasion of which Aemilianus, as we have shown, assumed the empire, continues in this manner: And after these things men wonder and are in doubt whence come continual plagues; whence grievous diseases, and blights of every kind, and manifold and various deaths of men: what is the cause why the greatest city (Alexandria) no longer bears so great a number of citizens, even if they are counted from the infants themselves up to decrepit old men, as it formerly nourished of those called hale old men. But at that time there were so many more of forty years, and of those beyond these advanced up to the seventieth year of age, that their number cannot now be filled up, even though those who are fourteen years old, up to the octogenarians, are enrolled and entered in the register for receiving the corn-dole from the public. And those who are in their very appearance young lads have now become in a manner equal to those who were formerly old men; and though they see the human race on earth so greatly diminished and consumed, their own destruction increasing and growing daily, they do not tremble.

[287] Dionysius a Paschal letter exhorting to charity, and his own also, From which words, as far as I think, no one will fail to draw out what I have just asserted concerning the fifteen-year plague having raged at Alexandria more than twice. These things being noted beforehand, I come now to the things which Dionysius treats, in words not transcribed here above, in the Paschal letter written after the sedition had arisen. The Saint exhibits in them a certain compendium of all the things which both he himself and the Christians with him endured in the various tempests of the Church, and places his chief effort in setting out those things which most commend the charity shown towards their brethren or companions seized by the plague by the Christians, whose merits he does not fear to equal to the dignity of the martyrs themselves. And he does this most probably with this design, that, since at the time when he was writing this letter the plague was raging most vehemently at Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt, he might animate the Christians to whom he was writing to like offices of charity. Thus the Saint, although as it were beset on every side by the gravest evils, bore the care of his flock, and was in nothing wanting to the office of an active and diligent pastor. Nor perhaps was Dionysius, while he was thus fulfilling all the parts of a most vigilant pastor, afflicted only by the calamity of the most grievous pestilence raging against his flock, but also, having been denounced to the tribunal of the Roman Pontiff as guilty of violated faith, which brought him the utmost grief, was compelled to defend his reputation against his accusers. For at that time perhaps, as we have already hinted before, the Saint composed his books on the Elenchus and Apologia, as written in some disturbed state of affairs, whether by war or plague, although it appears far more probable that he did this when the tyranny had been seized by Macrianus in Egypt after Valerian's captivity, as ought to be plain to everyone from what we have already disputed above. However that may be, if perhaps the writing of Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia can be deferred up to that time at which the plague again raged at Alexandria under Gallienus, and at which Dionysius, after it had arisen there, wrote the Paschal letter of which we have already treated, it is nevertheless certain that the said writing cannot be removed up to the year 265.

[288] For the Paschal letter of the Saint just mentioned was written, as I have shown, for the Pascha of the year 264 after the year 264 to the Christians established throughout Egypt; and when the Saint wrote the next Paschal letter after this one, affairs at Alexandria and in Egypt seem to have been pacified, and accordingly disturbed neither by war nor by plague. That affairs at Alexandria were not then disturbed by plague seems to be gathered from Eusebius, book 7, chapter 22. For this writer, after he had brought into his History, at least in part, in the place cited, the Paschal letter of Dionysius just mentioned, in which certainly the Saint treats not of war, since this had ended at the time when he was writing it, but of the plague raging at Alexandria, presently subjoins: After this letter, affairs in the city of Alexandria having been pacified, Dionysius again wrote a Paschal letter to the brethren established throughout Egypt. By which words Eusebius, since he had already narrated before that the war at Alexandria was ended, and had just recited a letter of Dionysius treating not of war but of the plague, seems to call the affairs of Alexandria pacified not by reason of the war then first ended, but by reason of the long plague, which had at length ceased to rage; so that at the time when Dionysius wrote the Paschal letter mentioned in the words just recited from Eusebius, affairs at Alexandria do not seem to have been disturbed by plague.

[289] Wherefore, since they do not seem to have been disturbed at that time either by war or otherwise, [certainly not written, he perhaps composed the books on the Elenchus and Apologia.] the writing of Dionysius's books on the Elenchus and Apologia, as they were composed in a disturbed state of affairs, cannot be deferred to that time at which the Paschal letter of Dionysius mentioned here in the last place was composed. Now this letter, since it was composed after the Paschal letter for the year 264, and a new Paschal letter is, as we have already said, the indication of a new year, was without doubt Paschal for the year 265, and was written at the beginning of this year, as you will easily gather from what was said above, so that the writing of the aforesaid books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia cannot be deferred to this year. Furthermore, when Eusebius, after the words just recited from him, says of Dionysius, and others after this in turn, or rather, as it is in the Greek, and after this he again composed various others, he must be understood as meaning that Dionysius, after the Paschal letter just mentioned, wrote still other letters of different argument, but not Paschal letters. For the Saint, as we are about to show below, did not remain surviving among the living long after the beginning of the year 265, so that after the Paschal letter just mentioned, since this, as has been said, was written at the beginning of the year 265, he could not write still more Paschal letters.

§ XXV. Dionysius is invited to the council to be celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and while it is being celebrated he meets his last day.

The very evil morals of Paul of Samosata, patriarch of Antioch, Paul, commonly called the Samosatene from Samosata, a city of Syria Euphratensis, his birthplace, raised to the chair of Antioch in the year of Christ 260, when the month of May was not further advanced, presently began to use the episcopal power most impudently, not for building up but for destroying. The Fathers of the council of Antioch celebrated in the year 270, in which Paul could not, as in another earlier one presently to be mentioned here, escape his condemnation by frauds, in the synodical letter in which, after the aforesaid council of the year 270, they signify the proscription of Paul to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, to Maximus, patriarch of Alexandria, and to other bishops, set out in a long discourse the depraved morals of this heresiarch. And from this it is clear how wicked, how crafty, how pernicious to his flock Paul was, and how insolently he abused his dignity. Departing from the rule of faith, say the Fathers of him, he went over to a spurious and adulterine doctrine… And whereas before (namely, not yet made patriarch) he was poor and a beggar, and had received no means at all either left by his parents or acquired by the exercise of any art, now (created patriarch) he has come to incredible opulence, through crimes and sacrileges and extortions from the brethren; while he deceives those who have been wronged, promising indeed that, a fee having been received, he will bring them help; but deceiving them, and from the pliancy of litigants, who are ready to give anything in order to be freed from their business, catching gain in vain, and thinking that piety is a way of gain. Thus far the Fathers of the said synod of Antioch, whose remaining words, in which in the said letter they graphically sketch and paint in their true colours Paul's arrogance, pride and other most corrupt morals altogether unworthy of a bishop, I omit for the sake of brevity, and in their place refer the curious reader to the place of Eusebius just cited.

[291] and his chief error concerning Christ. The spurious and adulterine doctrine to which Paul, when already made patriarch, went over according to the said synodical letter, pertains chiefly to our purpose, inasmuch as against it St. Dionysius laboured, when already near to death, to defend by written letters the divinity of Christ, which he had often wished to profess by the shedding of his blood while still sound and vigorous. Therefore, although I should like to wrap Paul's other crimes in silence, I cannot pass over silently his supreme impiety against Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, and, lest I should uselessly stain paper by reviewing all the blasphemies of the most impious heresiarch that bear on this, I record solely his chief error. Paul of Samosata, then, taught that Christ is a creature, not hypostatically united to the divine Word, and defended this impious doctrine most obstinately, so that it may here not undeservedly be pronounced of him, in a sound sense, what Theodoritus, or, as others render it, Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus, afterwards committed to writing concerning Arius and his heresy in book 1 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 2: The envious and most wicked demon, the destruction of the human race, when he saw the Church borne on so happy a course (very many, namely, now adoring the true God), could not endure it; but devised fraudulent counsels, striving with all zeal to sink the Church, which is ruled by the Founder and Lord of all. For he saw that the error of the gentiles was now laid open (namely to a huge multitude of people), and the various frauds of the demons detected, and created things no longer adored by most (or at least by many); but in their place the Founder Himself celebrated with hymns. Wherefore he no longer openly stirred up war against God and our Saviour; but having found men adorned indeed with the name of Christians, yet enslaved to ambition and vainglory, he designated them as ministers of his malice, and by their work

recalled many to the former error of superstition. Not contriving this indeed, that they should worship the creature anew; but bringing it about that the Maker and Founder of the universe should be reckoned in the same order with the creatures.

[292] These things thus far concerning Arius the said Theodoritus, which, as I have said, it is right not undeservedly to pronounce in a sound sense likewise of Paul of Samosata, A synod proclaimed against him. To it Dionysius since he would have Christ, the founder and maker of all things according to the divine nature, reckoned in the same order with the creatures. Furthermore, the impious heresiarch strove with the utmost strength, though secretly, to disseminate this doctrine of his, most injurious to Christ, in every direction, and to draw into the fellowship of his impiety as many Christians as he could. And indeed he seems to have accomplished this with such success that he had already joined to himself not a few followers of his doctrine and was joining more daily. Hence the safety of the church of Antioch seemed to be done for, unless a timely remedy were applied to the creeping evil. But there were at that season not a few bishops in the East who burned with no less zeal for defending the truth than Paul was inflamed with fury for propagating impiety. These, therefore, having heard of the danger of the church of Antioch, wrote letters back and forth in every direction, and by their help conferred counsels, by which it was at length brought about that a council was proclaimed to be celebrated within the city of Antioch itself against Paul of Samosata. To it all the bishops were invited, and first of all those who were remarkable at once for holiness of life and for learning, and among them our Saint, bishop of the church of Alexandria. Demetrianus having died at Antioch, says Eusebius in book 7, chapter 27, Paul of Samosata took up the episcopate. When he had begun to think of Christ, against the doctrine of the Church, too abjectly and lowly, as though He had had nothing above the common nature of men; Dionysius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, asked to come to the council (to be celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata), deferred his coming indeed, alleging old age and infirmity of body. For the rest, he indicated by letters what he himself thought on this question. But the other pastors of the churches, roused from every side, came together all at once to Antioch as against the ravager of the Lord's flock.

[293] not coming on account of infirmity, set out by letters what he thought. In this manner Eusebius most clearly testifies whatever I have asserted concerning the council convoked at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and concerning Dionysius invited to it. Nor does this writer teach us only this, but also two other things in the recited words. And the first indeed is that Dionysius, although on account of old age and infirmity of body he could not himself go to the council, nevertheless sent a letter to Antioch, and in it set out what he himself thought on the matter to be treated in the council; and the other, that the bishops, impelled by the utmost ardour of defending the faith against the impious novelty, flew together in great number from every side to the proclaimed council. Concerning the said letter of Dionysius, which regards our purpose more nearly, a few more things occur to me to be said here; but in order that these may be understood more clearly, I shall not do so before I have set down beforehand some things concerning the council to which Dionysius was invited, concerning the single other council which, according to what is to be said, was likewise celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata after it, and concerning the things which were done in those two councils. Eusebius, in book 7, chapter 28, in these words, which with those just recited from the preceding chapter of the same writer constitute one and the same series of discourse, enumerates by name the chief bishops who were present at the former council against Paul. Among whom (the bishops who came together to the first council of Antioch) there were most eminent, he says, Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians; Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, bishops of the churches in Pontus; Helenus also of Tarsus and Nicomas of Iconium, prelates. And also Hymenaeus, who ruled the church of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus, who administered the church of Caesarea bordering on it. Maximus besides, who governed the church of Bostra with the highest praise. Six hundred others also, who flocked there together with presbyters and deacons, it would be by no means difficult to enumerate. But these whom I have named were held illustrious before the rest.

[294] The outcome which it obtained. The chief bishops who were present at this former council of Antioch having been thus enumerated by name, the said Eusebius presently continues thus: All, therefore (the bishops who had flocked to Antioch to confer counsels against Paul), coming together at various times, in different ways and often into one, many disputations and questions were agitated in each session; while on the one side Paul of Samosata strove to conceal the novelty of his doctrine, on the other the priests laboured to lay bare and bring into the open his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. So Eusebius, declaring what the Fathers did in the council; but what outcome it had it is right to gather from these words of the synodical letter, already cited above: But Firmilian (bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia), when he had twice come to Antioch, condemned indeed the novelty of the doctrine introduced by him (Paul of Samosata), as we who were present testify, and as many others know very well as well as we: but when he had promised that he would change his opinion, Firmilian, believing him and hoping that the matter could be excellently settled without any reproach and loss to our religion, deferred his sentence, deceived, namely, by a man who denied his God and Lord, and who had violated the faith which he formerly professed. These things the Fathers in the said synodical letter; from which it is easy to gather that, a change of opinion having been promised by Paul, an end was put to the synod with no penalty inflicted on the heresiarch. But, by the testimony of Theodoret, book 2 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 8, Paul openly protested in the synod that he adhered to the doctrine of the Apostles, and had never held the errors of which he was accused. And indeed that Paul protested this the words transcribed from Eusebius at the beginning of this number do not allow us to doubt. But, if credit is to be given to Theodoret, it came about that, Paul protesting these things, the Fathers of the council gave thanks to God for this agreement of Paul with the rest in doctrine, and, each returning to his own church, the synod came to an end.

[295] Hence chiefly, as far as I think, it came about Tillemont, neither from Theodoritus, that Tillemont establishes that not two only, but at least three councils were celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, of which the first indeed was that in which Paul, protesting that he adhered to the doctrine of the Apostles, escaped free from every ecclesiastical penalty; the second, that in which Paul turned Firmilian, deceived by a feignedly promised change of opinion, away from passing sentence; and the third, finally, that in which at length the heresiarch, convicted of perverse doctrine, was visited with the penalty long since deserved. But I much doubt whether more than two councils were celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata. For the said Theodoritus perhaps strayed from the truth when he committed to writing that the individual bishops gathered at Antioch, after the aforementioned protestation of Paul, having given thanks to God, returned to their churches, and so the synod was concluded. And for this reason Theodoritus perhaps seems to me to have been mistaken, that the Fathers of the last council of Antioch, in the synodical letter already cited more than once, make absolutely no mention of an earlier council terminated in the manner in which it is narrated by Theodoritus, where nevertheless, in order to make Paul's craftiness plain to the world, they record the manner in which Paul fraudulently induced Firmilian to defer his sentence against him. See also what we are about to observe at number 308. Moreover Theodoritus can be explained in such a way that he did not indeed certainly err, but only omitted to narrate certain things which intervened between the protestation of Paul which he records and the dissolution of the council. Paul, as Eusebius testifies in the words recited in the preceding number, at the beginning of the former synod still strove to conceal the novelty of his doctrine, so that it was then, even from the testimony of Eusebius, that Paul most probably made the protestation which Theodoritus records. And nothing stands in the way of Paul being believed to have been convicted of error while the same synod lasted, and then, in order to escape the sentence to be passed against him, to have pledged a change of opinion. Now if these things were done in the former synod, as is not unlike the truth, and it only then came to an end, Theodoritus can be said not to have erred, but only to have omitted certain things, when he subjoined the dissolution of the council immediately to the protestation of Paul which he records.

[296] And indeed that something was omitted here by Theodoritus who mentions only two councils. seems to be gathered from Theodoritus himself. For when he had narrated that the first council of Antioch was terminated in the manner we have already stated, presently, no mention of any other council having been made first, he subjoins in the place cited above: But as time went on, report, again pervading all regions, announced to all the depravity of Paul. But not even so did the most praiseworthy Fathers proceed easily to cutting the man off; but first indeed they tried to heal the disease by letters; and when they perceived that the evil was incurable, they hastened again to Antioch with eager mind, and applied gentle medicines, admonishing and exhorting, and recalling the agreements made to memory. Since, then, according to Theodoritus, as is clear from these words, the Fathers recalled to memory the agreements made, when Paul had relapsed after the first council, it seems to follow that something intervened between the said protestation of Paul and the end of the said council which was omitted by Theodoritus. And I think that it is the change of opinion promised by Paul when convicted of error, and the suspension, on that condition, of the sentence to be pronounced against him by the Fathers. However that may be, Theodoritus, who nevertheless reviews in compendium sufficiently accurately in the place cited above the whole series of the things done in the cause of Paul of Samosata, records only two councils celebrated against him, in one of which he escaped free from penalty, in the other was deposed, so that more do not seem in fact to have been celebrated.

[297] neither from Firmilian's twofold coming to Antioch, nor from Rufinus But, you will say, Firmilian, according to the synodical letter already often mentioned, came twice to Antioch on the occasion of the doctrine delivered by Paul of Samosata, and accordingly, since, by the testimony of the same synodical letter, Firmilian was not present at the last council of Antioch, in which Paul was deposed, it is necessary that before this last council two others were still celebrated against Paul, on the occasion of which Firmilian came twice to Antioch. I answer: Firmilian may, while the first council of Antioch lasted, being rather long, have come twice to Antioch, once indeed at the beginning of the council, and a little after, having set out from there elsewhere for a just cause, have returned again afterwards. But if this displeases, I say with our Bolland, at the IXth of February, in the historical Commentary on St. Athenodorus the bishop, number 16, that it came about that Firmilian came to Antioch once more also on account of Paul of Samosata, either before he came there to the former synod, or after it, when Paul was already reported to have returned to his vomit, and the second synod was not yet being celebrated against him. But, says Tillemont cited above, the bishops gathered at Antioch, by the testimony of Rufinus, book 7, chapter 26, the cause

of Paul of Samosata could not complete in either one or two councils. I confess, Rufinus writes this in the place cited; the words in which he does so are these: These, therefore (the bishops gathered at Antioch against Paul of Samosata), all coming together often into one, and setting Paul of Samosata in the midst, and denouncing, by frequent treatment and assiduous disputations, his heresy, which he tried now to conceal, now also to dissemble, strove to convict him of blasphemy and to make it public. Yet they could not bring it to an end in one or only a second council. But they both came together often, and departed without effect.

[298] prove that more than two councils were celebrated against Paul. But from these words Tillemont has absolutely nothing for his opinion: for by the word council, which Rufinus employs here, is to be understood not a synod but a session. This is clear from the very context of the words, and from chapter 28, book 7 of Eusebius, which corresponds to the chapter of Rufinus just cited. For in this chapter of Eusebius several sessions are said to have been celebrated in the same council; and in Greek for signifying a session there is employed Συνόδος, which word, since it also signifies a council, was less rightly taken by Rufinus in this signification, and so was probably the cause why he wrote that the cause of Paul of Samosata could not be terminated in either one or two councils, where he ought to have written that it could not be completed in either one or two sessions. I also do not see how Tillemont can elicit a diversity of councils from these words of Eusebius: All, therefore (the bishops gathered at Antioch), coming together at various times, in different ways and often into one, many disputations and questions were agitated in each session; while on the one side Paul of Samosata still strove to conceal the novelty of his doctrine; on the other the priests strove to lay bare and bring into the open his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. For by these words Eusebius only indicates that during the time of one and the same council the Fathers came together often, that is, that several sessions were held, as always happens in all councils, perhaps without exception, in which the doctrine of Paul was diligently treated and disputed. Therefore, all the reasons of Tillemont for distinguishing a threefold council of Antioch having been weighed, I am by no means moved to think that one should depart from the more common opinion of the learned, which establishes only two councils celebrated against Paul of Samosata, namely one in the year 265, the other in the year 270.

[299] Furthermore, to the first of those two councils To the first of these the Saint, not by the presbyters of Antioch alone, Dionysius was invited not by the presbyters of Antioch alone, as it wrongly seemed to some, but perhaps by these together, and certainly by the bishops and presbyters of the neighbouring cities. This is clear from the synodical letter, already very often mentioned, and written by the Fathers of the second council of Antioch celebrated against Paul. For this, in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 30, begins thus: To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow ministers throughout the whole world, bishops, presbyters and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church which is under heaven, Helenus and Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proculus, Nicomas, Aelianus, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodore and Malchion and Lucius, and all the rest who are with us, bishops, presbyters and deacons of the neighbouring cities and provinces (or rather, as it is in the Greek, nations), and of the Church of God, to the dearest brethren in the Lord, greeting. And then, a few things, as Eusebius says in the place just cited, having been interposed, the Fathers named in the opening of the letter, already transcribed here, continue thus: We also wrote to very many bishops dwelling farther off, and exhorted them to come to cure the disease of the deadly doctrine (delivered by Paul of Samosata). For we gave letters both to Dionysius of Alexandria and to Firmilian, prelate of Cappadocia, men of blessed memory. The Fathers of the second council of Antioch, then, named in the opening of the said letter, gave, as is plain from these two texts already transcribed, letters to Dionysius and to other bishops dwelling farther off, by which they invited them to Antioch to come to cure the deadly disease of Paul's impious doctrine. Wherefore, since it is manifest from the words recited here in the first place that the Fathers who are named at the beginning of the said letter were bishops and presbyters of the cities and nations neighbouring Antioch, it becomes undoubted that the Saint was invited to the council of Antioch not by the presbyters of the church of Antioch alone, but perhaps by these, and certainly by the bishops and presbyters of the cities and nations neighbouring Antioch, and that indeed to the first, not to the second, since at the time of the latter, as celebrated not earlier than about the year 270, Dionysius had long since been taken from among the living.

[300] but perhaps by these, and certainly by the neighbouring bishops, was invited. But if you say that Dionysius inscribed the letter, which he sent in reply to the letter by which he had been invited to the synod to be celebrated at Antioch (see the words to be recited in the following number), to the church of Antioch alone, and accordingly that he was invited to the synod by its faithful and presbyters alone; I answer: in the Greek is set γράψας … τῇ παροικίᾳ πάσῃ; and in Greek the signification of this word παροικία extends itself to signifying a whole ecclesiastical province or patriarchate, so that, when Dionysius is said to have sent a letter in reply τῇ παροικίᾳ πάσῃ of the Antiochenes, it can by no means be concluded from this that he wrote to the faithful and presbyters of the church of Antioch alone. Indeed, since the said word παροικία extends itself to signifying an entire ecclesiastical province or patriarchate, it does not appear to be doubted that the Saint, writing τῇ παροικίᾳ πασῃ of the Antiochenes, wrote to all the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, and accordingly, since the Saint without doubt wrote the aforementioned letter in reply to those by whom he had been invited to the council, it is necessary that he was invited there by the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. And although some of the bishops named above, who were present at the second council of Antioch against Paul and invited Dionysius to it, did not belong to the patriarchate of Antioch, the Saint nevertheless inscribed the said letter in reply to τῇ παροικίᾳ πασῃ alone, that is, to the bishops and presbyters of the patriarchate of Antioch alone, because these constituted the more important and greater part of the council, and the matter concerned them chiefly.

[301] Concerning Dionysius's letter written to Antioch we are taught four things. But let what has been said concerning the councils of Antioch celebrated against Paul of Samosata suffice. I return to Dionysius and to the things done by him on the occasion of the heresy propagated by Paul. The Saint, as is clear from the words of Eusebius already recited at number 292, being of very advanced age and hindered by infirmity of body, did not go to the former synod of Antioch to which he had been invited; yet he made himself present to it by letters, in which he set out clearly what he himself thought on the question or matter to be treated among the Fathers against Paul. Mention of the letter written by Dionysius at that time occurs twice in Eusebius; first indeed in book 7, chapter 27, where in the words already transcribed here at number 292 Eusebius speaks of Dionysius invited to the council of Antioch and alleging infirmity of body and old age so as not to go there; and then in book 7, chapter 30, in the synodical letter which the Fathers of the later, or second, council of Antioch against Paul wrote to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, to Maximus, patriarch of Alexandria, and to other bishops dispersed through the whole world, and which the said Eusebius exhibits in the place just cited, at least for the great part. In this the Fathers make mention of the aforesaid letter of Dionysius in this manner: For we gave letters both to Dionysius of Alexandria and to Firmilian, prelate of Cappadocia, men of blessed memory. Of whom the former (Dionysius of Alexandria, namely) wrote indeed to Antioch; but the leader of the error (Paul of Samosata) he did not honour even with a greeting; nor did he direct his letters to him by name, but to the whole church of the Antiochenes, of which we have also subjoined a copy here. These things the Fathers of the later council of Antioch, from whose words, together with the words of Eusebius recited above, we have ascertained four things concerning the said letter of Dionysius, namely that in it the Saint alleged old age and infirmity of body so as not to come to Antioch; that he meanwhile set out what he thought on the question in controversy; and that he addressed the bishops and presbyters of the church, or rather province, of Antioch alone, and by no means Paul of Samosata, the leader of the error, as one whom he did not honour even with a greeting.

[302] Furthermore, this letter of Dionysius must have been very worthy of note, [This Baronius says is the same as the reply to the ten questions of Paul mentioned here] whether for its own sake or for its author's, since the Fathers of the later council of Antioch, who deposed Paul of Samosata, judged that it should be published, and to this end transmitted it, attached to their synodical letter already often mentioned, to all the churches dispersed through the world in every direction, as is plain from the words of the synodical letter just recited. It appears likely that this letter of Dionysius, mentioned in Eusebius in the places stated above, is not different from the letter which St. Jerome, on the Illustrious writers of the Church, chapter 69, records in these words that Dionysius wrote against Paul of Samosata a few days before his death: But also against Paul of Samosata, a few days before he died, a notable letter of his (St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria) is reported. Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 266, number 2, writes thus: Since this Paul (of Samosata) held too abject and lowly an opinion of Christ against the doctrine of the Church, namely that He was endowed only with a nature common with man, Dionysius of Alexandria was asked to come to the synod, which namely was to be celebrated at Antioch against Paul. He (Dionysius, namely), although, alleging old age and at the same time weakness of body, he refused to be present, nevertheless made them certain by a letter of the opinion which he held on the controversy. That same letter exists, translated into Latin by a Man of distinguished learning, Francisco Torres, but not yet printed, he having been prevented by death; from which some things concerning the truth and mystery of the most holy Eucharist have been recited a little above. So Baronius, at the time when the letter which he mentions had not yet been published in print. This is the reply to ten questions proposed to Dionysius by Paul of Samosata, and it came out afterwards at Rome together with another letter of Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, with Torres's Notes added and a Catalogue of the lost Works of Dionysius prefixed. And this was the first edition of the said letters made in Latin, from which both afterwards passed in the same idiom into the Bibliotheca Patrum, often reprinted. Labbe also judged them worthy to be brought, as genuine Works of Dionysius, into the first volume of the Councils in Greek and Latin together.

[303] But not all the learned, having seen these letters, passed the same judgment. which others deny to him; For some judged that they are to be held as supposititious little Works, falsely fastened on Dionysius, so that, if this opinion agrees with the truth,

the just-mentioned letter in reply to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, which is circulated under the name of Dionysius, is beyond all doubt, contrary to what Baronius would have in the words just recited, not the same as the letter which Dionysius, when he had been invited to the synod to be celebrated against Paul, sent to the church of Antioch, or rather to all the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, and which the Fathers of the second council of Antioch afterwards, inserted into their synodical letter, sent in every direction, as we have already said, to all the churches dispersed through the whole world. Among those who judged that the letter in reply to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, and the other already mentioned too, were to be denied to Dionysius, the first seems to have been Valois, when he wrote thus in the Annotations to chapter 30 of the seventh book of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History: False, therefore, and supposititious is the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samosata, which was published in the eleventh volume (of the Paris edition, namely) of the Bibliotheca of the holy Fathers, together with the ten propositions of Paul of Samosata and the answers of Dionysius to them. For the Fathers indeed of the council of Antioch (the second, namely, in the synodical letter already very often cited here above) affirm that Dionysius did not give letters to Paul, but only to the church of Antioch. But in that letter which was published under the name of Dionysius, Dionysius is said to have written twice to Paul. Nor does the style of that letter and answer correspond to the other writings of Dionysius. Therefore I persuade myself that that Work is adulterine, for the reasons which I have stated, although Baronius held that letter to be true and genuine.

[304] but others ascribe them to Dionysius. So the said Valois, contending that whatever is found inserted in the Bibliotheca of the Fathers against Paul of Samosata under the name of Dionysius is altogether false and supposititious. Valois was afterwards agreed with by Élie Dupin in his New Library of ecclesiastical writers, by Thierry Ruinart in the Genuine and Select Acts of the Martyrs, and by not a few other learned men. But not a few on the contrary, and among them Tillemont, have gone over to the opinion which ascribes the aforesaid letter, together with the answer to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, to Dionysius of Alexandria. As for me, I hold it as likely that those two letters are deservedly marked with the name of Dionysius, as one who, as appears more probable to me, is their genuine author. Since nevertheless I do not think this altogether certain and ascertained, and I have determined to treat in the Appendix to be attached to this Commentary of those Works and letters concerning which it can be doubted whether they are certainly Dionysius's, I throw into it, so as not to depart from my undertaking, the further treatment of the two said letters, by which I may discuss the dissenting opinions concerning them. Meanwhile, learned reader, I would have you forewarned, for the sake of avoiding confusion, that two things are to be investigated there concerning the said two letters; of which the first indeed is whether the said letters truly have Dionysius as their author; and the other, whether, on the hypothesis that they were truly written by the Saint against Paul of Samosata, the second of them, or the answer to the ten questions proposed by Paul, is not different from the letter which Dionysius wrote to the church of Antioch, and which afterwards the Fathers of the later council of Antioch dispatched to all the churches of the world. I now dispatch the remaining things which I find committed to writing concerning Dionysius on the occasion of the heresy stirred up by Paul of Samosata.

[305] Two letters of Dionysius mentioned by Theodoritus; Theodoritus, already often cited above, bishop of Cyrus, a not uncelebrated city of the province of Euphratensis in Syria, who, born as the fourth century was growing old, became illustrious in the following century by many written Works and deeds, records these things in the second book of the Heretical Fables, chapter 8, which is inscribed On Paul: Paul of Samosata was bishop indeed of the Antiochenes. And Zenobia at that time holding the toparchy (for the Persians, the Romans having been conquered, had given Syria and Phoenicia to her to rule), he fell into the heresy of Artemon, thinking by this means to gain her favour, since she thought the same as the Jews. When the rectors of the churches had learned this, they judged it not free from danger to neglect so great a disease, which was hastening to creep on and had as its helper the greatness of the largest city. And Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a man distinguished for learning, deferred his journey on account of the weakness of old age, but by letters persuaded him of what was fitting, and roused the bishops who had come together to take up zeal for the truth. In which words the said Theodoritus declares chiefly two things bearing on this, namely that Dionysius by letters persuaded him, that is, as appears, Paul of Samosata, of what was fitting, and at the same time roused the bishops who had come together to celebrate the council against Paul to take up zeal for the truth. As regards the first, that is, the persuasive letters given by Dionysius to Paul, if Theodoritus, as the words recited from him seem to hint, perhaps means that these were written by Dionysius at the time when he wrote the letter mentioned above to the church of Antioch, or rather to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, this tenet of Theodoritus cannot be admitted as true. For it conflicts most openly with the synodical letter of the later council of Antioch, already very often cited above, in which it is expressly asserted that Dionysius, at the time when he was writing the said letter to the Antiochenes, did not write to Paul of Samosata by name; indeed that he did not honour him even with a greeting.

[306] But if the recited words of Theodoritus, as may perhaps be, one of these was most probably written by the Saint; are so taken that that writer signifies by them the aforesaid persuasive letters given by Dionysius to Paul, yet does not refer them to the time at which the Saint wrote to the Antiochenes, they teach nothing at all which altogether shrinks from the truth. For although Dionysius, at the time of the former council of Antioch, that is, at the time when he wrote to the Antiochenes, did not write to Paul of Samosata, since he then found him too hardened in his heresy, nothing nevertheless prevents his being believed to have written to that heresiarch before the said time, when, namely, the hope still shone of drawing him away from heresy. Certainly the kindled charity with which the Saint shone towards all Christians whatever, and on that very account chiefly towards the bishops, his fellow ministers in propagating and defending the Gospel truth, most vehemently impels me to believe that Dionysius, as soon as he learned from certain authors of the pitiable lapse of Paul of Samosata, gave him persuasive letters, by which he most zealously tried to call him away from error and lead him back into the right path. What also contributes a little to my thinking so is Nicephorus Callistus, who in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 27, writes thus of Dionysius of Alexandria: Dionysius exhorted Paul (of Samosata, namely) by letters, and sent his opinion on the question proposed to those who adhered to him. So Nicephorus, with whom, as regards the hortatory letters given by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, I not unwillingly agree, as I have already hinted; especially since that writer committed this to writing, as it appears to me at least, on the credit of Theodoritus, and accordingly judged that this writer was to be understood in the manner I have just stated. Thus it appears certainly most probable that Dionysius sent a persuasive or hortatory letter to Paul of Samosata, by which he tried to turn him away from the error into which he had fallen. When I say this, do not, I pray, take it as though I at the same time mean that the two letters mentioned above, which Torres first published under the name of Dionysius, were truly written by the Saint. For they can be, and both of them in fact perhaps are, as we shall say below, distinct from the letter which Theodoritus, as we have already seen, records as given by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata.

[307] but the other, as appears more probable, is not different I come now to the other assertion which is comprehended under the words recited above from Theodoritus, and which reveals that a letter was written by Dionysius by which he spurred the bishops gathered at Antioch against Paul to the defence of the truth. I scarcely doubt that Dionysius exhorted the bishops to discharge their duty vigorously, and hence what Theodoritus asserts concerning the bishops spurred by Dionysius to the defence of the truth appears to me indeed most probable, and is also confirmed in some fashion from Nicetas Choniates, when, writing of the heresy of Paul of Samosata in book 4 of the Thesaurus, he has thus: But that great Dionysius of Alexandria could not, on account of old age, be present at the council, namely the one which was celebrated at Antioch against Paul, yet by letters he sharpened those who had come together to the defence of the truth. But although I think it most probable that the bishops gathered at Antioch against Paul were spurred by Dionysius to the defence of the truth by a letter sent, it nevertheless appears to me very doubtful whether this ought, without any hesitation at all, as has seemed to some, to be distinguished from the letter which Dionysius, according to what we have shown above, sent to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, and which afterwards the Fathers of the later council of Antioch inserted into their synodical letter. Indeed it appears to me more probable that two different letters are not to be distinguished here.

[308] from the letter which Dionysius gave to the church of Antioch, who For the Saint, in the letter which he sent to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, adduced old age and infirmity of body as the cause why he did not go to the council, and at the same time set out what he thought: and since the Saint did this last in the said letter, it is certainly most probable that he used in this same letter at the same time the exhortation by which he spurred the bishops to defending the truth which he proposed to them, so that it is not necessary to distinguish the hortatory letter which Theodoritus records as written by Dionysius to the bishops of the former council of Antioch from the letter which we have shown above was written by the Saint to the church of Antioch, or rather to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. Moreover the Fathers of the second council of Antioch, who brought into their synodical letter (see the words of this recited at number 301) the letter given by Dionysius to the church of Antioch, or to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, made no mention of another given by the Saint to the synod besides this one, although, if only Dionysius had written such a one, they seem likely to have recorded it, and to have brought it into their synodical letter in preference to the other given to the church of Antioch. You see now, I believe, learned reader, that it cannot easily be defined how many or which letters Dionysius composed on the occasion of the heresy introduced by Paul of Samosata. Eusebius makes mention of only one letter written by Dionysius on that occasion; but if Theodoritus can be trusted sufficiently safely, the Saint wrote at least two letters on the said occasion, namely one to Paul of Samosata, the other to the bishops of the council gathered against Paul. The matter is manifest from the words of Theodoritus just recited. But in these the said Theodoritus also writes that the Persians, the Romans having been conquered, gave Syria and Phoenicia to Zenobia to rule; and this, since Odenathus, the husband of Zenobia, after Valerian had been captured and the Romans conquered, expelled the Persians from Syria and Phoenicia by force of arms, as anyone will easily understand from the Augustan History, seems altogether foreign to the truth.

[309] Whence it seems not undeservedly possible to doubt

whether what Theodoritus hands down to memory concerning the letters of Dionysius on the occasion of the heresy introduced by Paul not long after, while the first council of Antioch was lasting, he died. likewise does not stray from the truth. Since, then, almost all things that are recorded concerning the letters written by Dionysius in the cause of Paul are so uncertain, I omit here further treatment of them, and at length frame my discourse on the happy and blessed end by which the Saint departed from this life to the Lord. Certainly the infirmity of body which Dionysius adduced, in the letter given to Antioch and very often cited above, as the cause why he did not go to the synod of Antioch, must have had the place of a legitimate excuse. For the Saint, while the synod was still lasting, departed from the living no less full of merits than of days. Eusebius teaches us this in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 28, having narrated the things which were done in the council of Antioch, presently subjoining: While these things were being done, Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria) met his last day, in the twelfth year of the principate of Gallienus, when he had held the episcopate at Alexandria for seventeen years. So Eusebius, narrating the death of Dionysius, and at the same time adding chronological marks, from which all the learned define in what year it happened. But since not all begin the episcopate of Dionysius from one and the same year, and the twelfth year of Gallienus coincides partly with the year of Christ 264 and partly with the year 265, hence it comes about that some attach the Saint's death to the year 264, others to the year 265. And which year we think should be preferred the following § will reveal.

§ XXVI. Inquiry is made into the year and day on which Dionysius departed from the living.

Dionysius the patriarchate of Alexandria We established at number 36 of this Commentary and the two following that St. Dionysius's promotion to the episcopate of Alexandria was made at the beginning of the year 247: and from this, since Dionysius, by the testimony of Eusebius cited in the preceding number, held the episcopate of Alexandria for seventeen years, it seems to follow that the Saint departed from the living in the year 264. For from the beginning of the year 247 to the beginning of the year 264 there run neither more nor fewer than seventeen years, and accordingly it does not seem to be doubted that the death of Dionysius must be made to agree with the said year 264. So, roughly, reason those who establish that Dionysius was raised to the episcopate of Alexandria in the year 247. But this reasoning of theirs does not hold if Dionysius governed the church of Alexandria as bishop for longer than the space of seventeen years; and the Saint did this for longer than seventeen years: lest anyone should think this said by me without grounds, I show the matter thus: Eusebius, in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 35 (see the words recited at number 35 of this Commentary), expressly teaches that Dionysius took up the Pontificate of the Alexandrian church in the third year of the emperor Philip.

[311] held for more than seventeen years, Wherefore, since Philip, as is commonly established by all, began to reign at the beginning of March of the year 244, and accordingly the third year of his reign came to an end at the beginning of March of the year 247, it is necessary, according to Eusebius, that Dionysius, Heraclas his predecessor having been taken from among the living on the fourth of December of the year 246, as you will find proved with us on the Patriarchs of Alexandria, was substituted in the patriarchate of Alexandria between the fourth of December of the year 246 and March of the year 247, and that not later than towards the end of February of the said year 247, lest otherwise Dionysius should have to be said to have been promoted to the patriarchate of Alexandria not in the third but in another, subsequent, year of Philip. Furthermore, since according to Eusebius Dionysius (see the words recited at number 309) exchanged life for death in the twelfth year of Gallienus, and this year of Gallienus, since he did not begin to reign before May of the year 253, does not begin to run before May of the year 264, it is necessary that the Saint prolonged his life up to this month of the year 264. Wherefore, since from February of the year 247, in which month, or at least not later, Dionysius was promoted to the patriarchate of Alexandria, up to May of the year 264, before which month Dionysius did not die, more than seventeen years run, it follows that the Saint, according to the calculations which Eusebius follows in his Ecclesiastical History, governed the church of Alexandria as bishop for more than seventeen years. Gather from this now that Eusebius, when he writes that Dionysius presided over the patriarchate of Alexandria for seventeen years, is to be understood of entire or complete years, which his formula of speaking expressed in the words recited at number 309 also sufficiently indicates, and that the excess of months and days above entire years was neglected by him by a mode of computing exceedingly usual also with other writers.

[312] and he departed from the living at the beginning of the year 265; And I think that that excess amounts neither to more nor to fewer than about ten months, and so that Dionysius departed from the living neither later nor earlier than at the beginning of the year 265. Not later, because if the Saint is established to have died in the said year 265 when advanced even only up to the month of April, he would now have governed the church of Alexandria as bishop not only seventeen but eighteen entire or complete years, which does not agree with the calculations of Eusebius. Not earlier, because Dionysius still wrote a Paschal letter for the year 265, and such letters were usually written only two months before the Pascha of the year for which they were given. That Dionysius still wrote a Paschal letter for the year 265 will become sufficiently plain to everyone from what I have discussed above bearing on this; yet for the sake of elucidating the matter more I add a few things here. Dionysius, when after the sedition on the occasion of which, according to what was said before, Aemilianus seized the empire in Egypt, a plague had arisen at Alexandria, gave a Paschal letter to the Christians dispersed through Egypt; and this letter, as we have shown at number 284 of this Commentary, was Paschal for the year 264. Furthermore, Eusebius transcribes this Paschal letter of Dionysius, at least for the greater part, into his Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 22, and presently subjoins: After this letter, affairs in the city of Alexandria having been pacified, Dionysius again wrote a Paschal letter to the brethren established throughout Egypt. Since, then, Dionysius, as Eusebius teaches by these words, after the Paschal letter which from what has been disputed above was written for the year 264, again wrote a Paschal letter to the brethren dispersed through Egypt when affairs at Alexandria had already been pacified, it follows that this, even without attending to that principle of the learned by which any new Paschal letter of Dionysius is taken as the indication of a new year, was Paschal for the year 265, that is, for the year which immediately followed the Saint's Paschal letter written concerning the plague. Wherefore, since this letter, as you will gather from what has already been said, was without doubt written only two months before the Pascha of the year 265, it does not appear doubtful that Dionysius, adhering to what Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History, survived among the living up to the beginning of the year 265.

[313] But, you will say, Eusebius in the Chronicle expressly affirms nor can the contrary be proved from Eusebius's Chronicle, that Dionysius departed from the living in the year 264. I answer: Eusebius's Chronicle (see number 36 and following of this Commentary) draws the beginning of the patriarchate of Alexandria entered upon by Dionysius from the fifth year of Philip, 248 of Christ; but the History from the third year of Philip, 247 of Christ. Wherefore, since the Chronicle of this writer thus most manifestly conflicts with the History, and that indeed so that the latter cannot be brought into concord with the former, one must stand by the History rather than by the Chronicle, and that by the judgment of all the learned, who think the same is to be done whenever a like dissonance occurs between those two monuments left by Eusebius. Now since, adhering to Eusebius's History, the Paschal letters of Dionysius which it supplies most certainly lead us, as I have already shown, up to the year 265, in which the Saint must still have been surviving among the living, we ought not to be moved by the authority of the Eusebian Chronicle to fix the death of Dionysius to the year 264. Moreover, the aforesaid Chronicle establishes the promotion of Dionysius to the patriarchate of Alexandria as made in the fifth year of Philip, of Christ 248 or 249, and that of Maximus, who immediately succeeded Dionysius, in the eleventh year of Gallienus, of Christ 263 or 264: and while it does this, it nevertheless ascribes to Dionysius seventeen years in round numbers. Wherefore, since from March of the year 248, in which month the fifth year of Philip begins, to May of the year 264, in which month the eleventh year of Gallienus ends, seventeen years in round numbers do not run, the said Chronicle seems little accurate here and accordingly to be emended from the History.

[314] But if, further, you reply that one must here stand by the Chronicle rather than the History, [nor from the inconvenience which, from the years attributed to Dionysius's successor,] and accordingly that the death of Dionysius is to be attached not to the year 265 but to 264, for this reason, that otherwise the eighteen years during which Eusebius writes in the History that Maximus, the immediate successor of Dionysius, presided over the patriarchate of Alexandria cannot be found: I answer that, even with the patriarchate of Dionysius prolonged to the beginning of the year 265, those eighteen years can be found, if not full ones, which Eusebius generally employs, at least begun ones, which the same writer also uses from time to time. For Maximus, as is now agreed among the learned, departed from life in the last year of the emperor Probus, of Christ 282, on the ninth of April; and from the year 265, at whose beginning we establish that Dionysius died, to April of the year 282 there run altogether seventeen full years with an excess of some months, so that, even with the death of Dionysius deferred to the beginning of the year 265, the eighteen years can be found during which Eusebius writes in his Ecclesiastical History, namely in book seven, chapter 32, that Maximus, who immediately succeeded Dionysius, presided over the patriarchate of Alexandria. It can indeed be further replied here that, according to this reckoning of ours, the seventeen years which Eusebius attributes in the History to the patriarchate of Dionysius are extended to nearly eighteen years; and the eighteen years which the same writer likewise ascribes in the History to Maximus are contracted to nearly seventeen: and this seems most inelegant and foreign to Eusebius's manner of computing years.

[315] arises: for they too labour under a grave inconvenience But I answer that there is not on that account reason why we should think that one must depart from our opinion, by which we join the beginning of the patriarchate of Dionysius with the year 247 and its end with the year 265. For although the inconvenience objected occurs in our opinion, it arises from the very assertions of Eusebius, from which it is no more right to depart than from the manner of computing years which this writer generally follows. Moreover, there is absolutely no opinion concerning the years of the patriarchate of Dionysius, and their beginning and end, which does not labour under some huge inconvenience, and accordingly there is no reason why we should abandon our opinion concerning the years in which Dionysius began and held the patriarchate of Alexandria on account of the inconvenience just proposed, since not even so should we have a plainer way by which to arrange the years of the patriarchate of our Saint, as I now proceed to show. Three chiefly, concerning the years

during which Dionysius held the Patriarchate of Alexandria, opinions are circulated which are different from our opinion already explained. The first indeed draws with us the beginning of the patriarchate entered upon by Dionysius from the third year of Philip, 247 of Christ; but, in order that the eighteen years which Eusebius ascribes to Maximus, the successor of Dionysius, may be found more conveniently, joins its end with the year of Christ 264 advanced beyond the month of May.

[316] two other opinions concerning the years of Dionysius's patriarchate, The second establishes the patriarchate of Dionysius as begun in the fifth year of Philip, 248 of Christ, somewhat advanced; and ended in the year 264, when a great part of it had already elapsed. The third, finally, affirms that the Saint was created patriarch towards the end of the year 248; and taken from among the living at the beginning of the year 265. And there is none of these three opinions which does not labour, as I have already said, under some grave inconvenience. And the first indeed, which ends the patriarchate of Dionysius in the year 264 advanced beyond the month of May, and does not extend it to the beginning of the year 265, cannot be reconciled with what Eusebius asserts concerning the Paschal letters written by Dionysius. For from the assertions of this writer (see number 288 and following) it is most certainly gathered that Dionysius gave to the Christians dispersed through Egypt a letter which was Paschal for the year 265, and which was accordingly written by the Saint at the beginning of this year; so that on this side the opinion which establishes the patriarchate of Dionysius as ended in the year 264 labours under a grave inconvenience. Hence it now follows that the second opinion also labours under the same inconvenience, since this too joins the end of the patriarchate of Dionysius with the year 264. Nor does the second opinion have this inconvenience only in common with the first, but also another in common with the third. For both this and the second draw the beginning of the patriarchate of Dionysius from the fifth year of Philip, and accordingly from the year of Christ 248 already advanced beyond the month of May.

[317] And from this it follows that they either prolong the patriarchate of Heraclas, who immediately preceded Dionysius in the chair of Alexandria, as also the third, which the Oriental Chronicle up to the year 248, or build up that between the death of Heraclas and the promotion of Dionysius to the patriarchate the see of Alexandria was vacant for the space of one year and some months. But since Heraclas, as Eusebius writes and is admitted by all, presided over the patriarchate of Alexandria for only sixteen years, and began to administer it not later than the year 230, the time at which Heraclas departed from the living, that is, ceased to govern the patriarchate of Alexandria, certainly cannot be extended up to the year 248 when a great part of it had already elapsed. It remains, then, that the patrons of the latter, or third, opinion affirm that between the death of Heraclas and the promotion of Dionysius the see of Alexandria was vacant for the space of one entire year and some months. But this long vacancy of the see of Alexandria appears very little likely on account of the things which I brought forward at number 38 of this Commentary. It is indeed noted in the Oriental Chronicle that the see of Alexandria was vacant for one year after the death of Heraclas: Hieraclas (these are the words of the said Chronicle) died … on Monday, the eighth of Choiac, or IV December, and the see was vacant one year. But the Oriental Chronicle, as is most well known to all the learned, teems everywhere with such gross and foul errors that, when it affirms that the see of Alexandria was vacant after the death of Heraclas, it is not able to produce certain and undoubted credit.

[318] Moreover the said Chronicle, in the very place in which it establishes the said vacancy of the see of Alexandria, is shown to be unable to support, reconciles the patriarchate of Heraclas, which it extends to sixteen years and fifty-six days, with the reign of Valerian and the year of Christ 240, and presently, where it treats of Dionysius, ascribes to his patriarchate nineteen years and 281 days, even without counting the year of vacancy after the death of Heraclas, all of which things shrink utterly from all sound chronology. There is no reason, then, why anyone should be greatly moved by the authority of the Oriental Chronicle to think that a vacancy of one entire year intervened between the death of Heraclas and the promotion of Dionysius. And indeed that vacancy, as also the second and third opinions mentioned above, which reconcile the promotion of Dionysius to the patriarchate of Alexandria with the fifth year of Philip, 248 of Christ, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius by no means allows to be admitted, as is established from what has already been said, and it beyond all doubt deserves greater credit than the Oriental Chronicle. And although Eusebius's Chronicle attaches the promotion of Dionysius to the see of Alexandria to the fifth year of Philip, 248 of Christ, nothing certain can be concluded from this for tying the promotion of Dionysius to the year 248, since the unanimous consent of the learned cries out that one must stand by Eusebius's History rather than by the Chronicle where the latter cannot be reconciled with the former. The same account is also to be held of the Hieronymian Chronicle of Eusebius.

[319] Therefore, firmly adhering to Eusebius's History, and to those things which I find undoubtedly and necessarily connected with the assertions of this writer in it, [and at the same time it is concluded that the Saint died at the beginning of the year 265.] I join the promotion of Dionysius to the patriarchate of Alexandria, whatever may be argued against it by the reasons already adduced and weakened by me, with the year of Christ 247; and his death with the beginning of the year 265. This calculation of ours is favoured, as I have already shown at number 38 of this Commentary, by Kircher's Catalogue of the patriarchs of Alexandria, in which the time during which Dionysius held the patriarchate of Alexandria is defined as eighteen years. For so many years, as will be plain to one who computes, nearly flowed from the end of February of the year 247, in which month we judge Dionysius was created patriarch, to the beginning of the year 265, in which we believe the Saint died. And these are the things which I thought should be brought forward for the year of Dionysius's death and the years during which he occupied the chair of Alexandria. Let us now inquire into the day on which the Saint exchanged this mortal life for the immortal one, or, to speak better, let us consider whether any day can be assigned on which it should not undeservedly be believed that Dionysius departed from the living.

[320] The day, however, on which this happened, neither from the Greek or Latin Fasti, The Latins, as we have already shown at number 21 of this Commentary, celebrate Dionysius in their Martyrologies on the XVIIth day of November; but the Greeks, in the Sirletian Menology and other sacred Fasti, on the third of October, whence Baronius and the other most learned reformers of the Roman Martyrology (see what was said at number 1 and following of this Commentary) brought him into the Martyrology reformed by them on the third day of October, although he was already inserted in the older Roman Martyrology on the XVIIth day of November. The Calendar of the Copts in Job Ludolf and the Abyssinian Hagiology hold the memory of Dionysius celebrated on the XIVth day of September. But I think that Dionysius departed from the living on absolutely none of these days on which he is celebrated in the sacred Fasti by Latins, Greeks, Copts and Abyssinians. Nor is there reason why this should seem strange to anyone. For one may find very many Saints who were brought into the sacred Fasti not on the days on which they died, but on others adopted at their discretion by the hagiologists. And indeed it does not appear to be doubted that this has place with regard to the Saint here. For the said Greek and Latin Fasti announce him not on one and the same day, but on days far different, so that certainly either in the latter or in the former the true day on which Dionysius died is not marked; whence it comes about that, since no stronger reason stands for the day assigned by the Greeks than for the day chosen by the Latins, I think the day was adopted at discretion both by the latter and by the former.

[321] nor from the Coptic Calendar nor from the Abyssinian Hagiology As regards the fourteenth day of September, on which Dionysius is celebrated in the said Coptic Calendar and likewise in the said Abyssinian Hagiology, that day ought to be held not as the day on which the Saint departed from the living, but as the day consecrated by the Copts and Abyssinians to his memory. For the Abyssinian Hagiologist himself sings thus on the ninth day of March: Hail to Dionysius, the wisest doctor of all, whom the reading of Paul's epistle converted from error. After he had sustained affliction and exile in his days, he departed today into the heavenly region, to be joined to the company of the archbishops. By which words, as marked at the IXth day of March, the aforesaid hagiologist most openly indicates that Dionysius departed from the living on that day, so that, when he also assigns the Saint to the XIVth day of September, he is to be understood not of the day on which he died, but of a day adopted at discretion, or at least for some cause other than death, which was consecrated to his cult among the Abyssinians. But, you will say, did Dionysius then truly die on the ninth day of March, as is noted in the Abyssinian Hagiology? I answer: the Abyssinian Hagiology is not esteemed so highly by the learned that this can be asserted for certain on its sole authority.

[322] is certainly ascertained and defined for us. Wherefore, since in absolutely no other Monuments, whether sacred or profane, is the IXth day of March assigned as the day which was the day of Dionysius's death, it still remains doubtful whether the Saint truly exchanged this mortal life for the immortal one on that day. But if anyone should obstinately wish that credit be given to the Abyssinian Hagiology as regards the day on which it places the death of Dionysius, I for my part shall not vehemently oppose it; but then I say that the beginning of Philip's reign is to be connected not with the beginning of March of the year 244, as is commonly done, but with the end of the same month, which also does not conflict with historical truth; and that the promotion of Dionysius to the patriarchate of Alexandria is to be placed not towards the end of February of the year 247, to which end we attach it at number 37, but about the twentieth of March; lest, namely, it should otherwise follow either that the promotion of Dionysius was made later than the third year of Philip, or that the Saint governed the church of Alexandria longer than seventeen years and about ten or eleven months, both of which equally, as it is easy to gather from what we have already disputed, most certainly conflict with the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, by whose calculations we nevertheless think one must stand.

§ XXVII. A brief recapitulation of the matters concerning Dionysius, arranged chronologically.

Dionysius first presided over the catechetical school at Alexandria, Although I have already explained at length in the course of this Commentary all the things which can be referred to a certain epoch, whether illustriously done or bravely endured by Dionysius, the time also to which each pertains having been defined as nearly as could be done, I have nevertheless thought that it would be worth the trouble, in order that I may set forth the whole series of Dionysius's life as though under one view, and lay down for the reader eager to know it an easier and shorter way to that end, to subjoin here a brief anacephalaeosis, or recapitulation, of the same matters, arranged chronologically. I therefore approach the matter itself. In the year 231, Heraclas, the immediate predecessor of Dionysius in the chair of Alexandria, having first been raised to it, Dionysius, the headship of the most celebrated school of Catechesis of Alexandria, concerning which Michel Le Quien records many things in volume 2 of the Oriens Christianus, column 382 and following, which Heraclas had discharged before his episcopate, of his virtues

and learning obtained. This is the first arena in which Dionysius excellently proved how greatly he excelled at once in learning and in virtue.

[324] Furthermore, Heraclas having been taken from among the living on the fourth of December in the year 246, [and having afterwards been created bishop, he suffered two persecutions not long after.] about two or three months after this event Dionysius, when he had vigorously administered the aforesaid headship for nearly sixteen years, was elected patriarch of Alexandria by the Alexandrian presbyters, who were accustomed to elect one from their own bosom, being certainly already a presbyter before. The Saint had scarcely been raised to that supreme dignity for two years when a most savage persecution, stirred up by the idolatrous people, blazed out at Alexandria, and seemed to be a prelude to the future calamities which the Saint afterwards endured under Decius and Valerian. This came to an end not very long after the Paschal feast of the year 249, a sedition with civil war having unexpectedly arisen at Alexandria, and then indeed Dionysius and the Christians committed to his care breathed again a little. But this breathing-space of theirs lasted only a very short space of time. For, the two Philips having been taken off by a violent death in the same year, Decius obtained the Roman empire, and presently began a most savage persecution against the Christians, as far as that empire extended. In it very many Christians at Alexandria obtained the glorious crown of martyrdom; very many on the contrary, which brought Dionysius the utmost grief, overcome by the force of torments, shamefully fell away from the faith.

[325] Two letters which he wrote while the latter of these lasted are enumerated; The Saint, when he had quietly awaited at his home for four days the soldier sent by the prefect Sabinus by whom he was to be seized, is compelled by the will of God to take to flight, and then, captured by soldiers and led to Taposiris by order of Sabinus, is snatched from the hands of the guards by the rustic Mareotes who came upon them, by an altogether wonderful disposition of God. Dionysius, thus freed from the hands of the soldiers, withdraws with Gaius and Peter into a certain desert and squalid place of Libya, and there remained continuously up to the year 251, in which the Decian persecution came to an end, and meanwhile wrote, as is most probable, various letters, and we have it ascertained that he certainly wrote two. One of these is that which he gave to Domitius and Didymus, and which we have mentioned at length above; the other, that which he wrote to Origen, when he was in torments, in order to relieve his mind wasting with grief and misery. This too we have likewise mentioned above, and shall mention again at greater length below, when we treat of the Saint's goodwill towards Origen. Furthermore, when the Decian persecution was already abating somewhat, a new tempest overtook the Church. Novatian, Cornelius having been elected Pontiff, stirred up a schism at Rome.

[326] as also whatever afterwards, first on the occasion of the schism of Novatian, In order to extinguish this at its very beginning, the Saint in the very year 251 writes two letters, one to the Roman brethren, or the Christians living at Rome, the other to the confessors who in the time of the Decian persecution had endured prison and chains at Rome for the confession of the faith. After these two letters he writes to Novatian himself, when he had invaded the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, in the said year 251, probably in the month of August, an altogether notable letter by which he excellently presses him, and then writes two other letters to the said confessors, in one of which he congratulates them on their happy return into the Church. The schism of Novatian, or rather his huge feeling of compassion towards those who had lapsed in the persecution of Decius, compelled Dionysius to write four letters besides those already mentioned. Of these the first was written to the brethren established throughout Egypt, the second to Conon, bishop of the church of Hermopolis, the third to the brethren of the church of Laodicea, and the fourth finally to the Armenians. All four were composed when the persecution of Decius had already ended, that is, when the year 251 had already passed, and not later than the year 256 or even 255. Before both these years, namely in the year 251 or certainly 252, Dionysius wrote yet another letter on the occasion of Novatian's schism, in which he tried to draw Fabius, bishop of Antioch, away from Novatian's schism, to which he was somewhat addicted, and from his harsh opinion concerning the lapsed.

[327] [second, on the occasion of the controversy which arose between Pope Stephen and Cyprian,] The most celebrated controversy about baptism which arose between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian in the year 255 offered our Saint, no less than the schism of Novatian, most abundant material for writing letters. These are all inscribed Concerning baptism, and Eusebius enumerates only six under this name, although the Saint wrote at least eight. Of these eight letters three, of which one was given to Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, another to Dionysius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, the third to Philemon, likewise a presbyter of the Roman Church, were written in the year 256; when, namely, the persecution of Valerian had not yet arisen. And this having arisen in the year 257, Dionysius was driven into exile by Aemilianus, the Augustal prefect, during which he wrote the five remaining letters of the eight mentioned, of which three were given to St. Sixtus, the Roman Pontiff, two others to Dionysius and Philemon, presbyters of the Roman Church, between about the twenty-fourth day of August of the year 257 and August of the year 258.

[328] Nor did the Saint, while still in exile, compose only these letters in order to provide for keeping peace in the Church, third, on the occasion of Pascha and of his reputation torn by Germanus, but he was also compelled to write yet another, of a far different argument, namely to provide for his own reputation, against Germanus, a certain Egyptian bishop, who traduced the Saint as a deserter of his flock and an altogether cowardly pastor. This letter was composed not earlier than the year 258 nor later than the year 259. At the same time also Dionysius wrote three other letters, which Eusebius mentions in book 7, chapter 20. Of these one was written to the fellow presbyters of the church of Alexandria; the two others were Paschal, and one indeed was addressed to Flavius, the other to Domitius and Didymus. Furthermore, while the persecution of Valerian was still lasting, or perhaps even a little before it was stirred up, a new heresy arose, which again gave Dionysius new material for writing. The heresy of the Sabellians had begun, about the year 257, to disturb the peace of the Church in the Pentapolis, a region which belonged to the patriarchate of Alexandria, and accordingly to the care of our Saint, no less than the persecution of Valerian.

[329] Dionysius at once opposed himself to the creeping evil, fourth, of the Sabellian and diligently tried to bring a timely remedy. To this end he used more than one counsel, and wrote not a few letters from about the year 258 to about the year 261. Among these are counted the letter to Ammonius, bishop of Berenice, another given to Telesphorus, and another to Euphranor. The most celebrated of all is that which was written by the Saint to Ammonius and Euphranor, by the testimony of Athanasius, and which is probably the same as the letter which Eusebius, book 7, chapter 26, records as written to Ammon and Euporus. The letter to Ammonius and Euphranor was written about the year 259, and is, as I have said, by far the most celebrated of all those which Dionysius wrote against the Sabellian heresy, because, namely, the Saint, having seemed to some Pentapolitans to speak rather crudely in it concerning the second Person of the most holy Trinity, was denounced to the Apostolic See, that is, to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, as guilty of violated faith, and so was compelled by more than one written letter to vindicate his faith from this mark of sinister suspicion fastened on him.

[330] Furthermore, the said accusation of the Pentapolitans against Dionysius happened either in the year 259, heresy, or, as is more probable, in the year 260; and when Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, had learned of it, he gave to Dionysius of Alexandria, in his own name and in that of the synod which he celebrated at Rome in the year 260, a letter by which he informed him of what he was accused of by the Pentapolitans. The Saint, having learned of the matter, at once wrote to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, a letter for the sake of clearing himself, which is beyond all doubt distinct from each of the four books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia, each of which is likewise found inscribed with the name of a letter which Dionysius of Alexandria gave for the sake of clearing himself to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff. That letter which is distinct from the four books of Dionysius on the Elenchus and Apologia was also composed before these, and is to be referred either to the year 259 or certainly to the beginning of the year 261, in which year also, or certainly in the year 262, Dionysius, as appears more probable, composed the aforementioned four books on the Elenchus and Apologia. In this very year 261 also, when it was already not a little advanced, Macrianus, who, Valerian having been captured by the Persians, had seized the tyranny in the East and had persecuted the Christians, perished together with his sons, and then Dionysius, the persecution having at length been calmed in Egypt too by the edict of Gallienus, returned to Alexandria, and there, in the year 262, celebrated a council against Sabellius and his followers, if only it ever took place, and is not to be counted among fictitious councils, which however I do not think.

[331] and fifth, finally, on the occasion of other events, he did. In the same year 262 also, about two months before Easter, he wrote a letter, which was probably Paschal, to Hermammon, a bishop of Egypt, and, when a little afterwards a new sedition had arisen at Alexandria, the Saint made his discourse by letters on the very day of Easter to the Christians living there, since he could not do it by living voice on account of the disturbances. In the year 263, about two months before Easter, he gave a Paschal letter to Hierax, a bishop of Egypt, and in it graphically depicted the most miserable state into which the city of Alexandria had been thrown by the sedition. In the year 264, when after the war a most monstrous pestilence had followed at Alexandria, he gave a Paschal letter to the Christians dispersed through Egypt, in which he discourses at length on that most grievous scourge of the offended Deity. In the year 265, affairs at Alexandria having been pacified, and accordingly that city being no longer afflicted either by war or by plague, he again wrote a Paschal letter to the Christians established throughout Egypt. In the same year also, having been invited to the council to be celebrated at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, he adduced, in a letter sent to Antioch, old age and infirmity of body as the cause why he could not betake himself there, and at the same time set out what he himself thought on the question to be treated in the council against Paul. Nor did he survive long afterwards among the living. For while the council was still lasting, being of very advanced age and broken by long labours, and no less full of merits than of days, he exchanged this mortal life for the immortal one at the beginning of the year 265.

[332] [All these things having been reviewed in chronological order, as far as could be done,] Would that all the excellent monuments of intellect and learning which he produced in great number amid the most dreadful persecutions stirred up against the Christians, not without the great admiration of all the learned, survived to our age! But, what it is grief to say, and what turns to the great detriment of the Church, only a few of these, and almost none but mutilated, preserved from destruction by the care of our Forefathers, have come down to us. These now, as also some others recorded by writers, which beyond doubt by our Saint

were written, and can be brought back to a certain epoch, I have here reviewed in chronological order, as far at least as the fewness of the chronological marks by which the matters concerning Dionysius are marked by the ancient writers allowed this to be done. But the remaining monuments of intellect and learning, which either perhaps are not Dionysius's, or, although they are undoubtedly to be attributed to the Saint, cannot be brought back to a certain epoch, I shall review in the Appendix presently to be subjoined, in the order which shall seem most fitting.

[333] Meanwhile it is pleasing still to say of Dionysius, by reason of the Works which he composed, some elogia of the Saint are subjoined. that he was of a sublime intellect, profound erudition, a knowledge of the doctrines of faith and of ecclesiastical discipline perfect in every respect, of mature and sound judgment, of a modesty and docility which, joined with a truly Christian humility, were altogether admirable in a man cultivated in letters on every side. St. Jerome, in letter 83 to Magnus, of the Basel edition, writing of the Works of Dionysius regarded in general, records thus: There are extant also the books of Julius Africanus … and of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria …, all of whom so fill out their books with the doctrines and opinions of the philosophers that you do not know what you ought first to admire in them, the learning of the world or the knowledge of the Scriptures. In the Prologue to book 18 on Isaiah he calls him most eloquent. A most eloquent man, he says, Dionysius, pontiff of the church of Alexandria, writes an elegant book, deriding the fable of the thousand years. Theodoritus, bishop of Cyrus, in book 2 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 8, already cited several times above, adorns Dionysius with the title of a Man distinguished for learning, and Rufinus, in the fifth volume of the Works of Jerome, calls him a most learned assertor of the ecclesiastical faith. The very many holy Fathers of the Greek church who, as I have already shown at number 26 of this Commentary, honour Dionysius with the title of the Great by excellence I pass over in silence, and at length proceed to the Works of Dionysius, of which I have proposed to treat in the Appendix.

APPENDIX

On the Works of the Saint whose epoch is unknown, and at the same time on those of which it is not established whether they are certainly Dionysius's.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Faustus, M., at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Gaius, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Peter, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Paul, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt. (S.)

Four others, at Alexandria and perhaps elsewhere in Egypt.

BY C. B.

CHAPTER I.

The two books On the Promises, and the matters treated in them by the Saint.

The two books of Dionysius On the Promises. The cause for which I am about to treat in this Appendix, as I have already advised above, a twofold kind of Works; the one, namely, which concerns the Works of Dionysius whose epoch is unknown; the other, which regards some Works concerning which it is not ascertained whether they are certainly Dionysius's. I take my beginning from the chief Works of the Saint whose epoch is unknown, and that indeed from the two books On the Promises. Besides these, says Eusebius of Dionysius in book 7 of the History, chapter 24, he composed two books On the Promises. Two books, says Jerome, reviewing the Works of Dionysius in the Catalogue of Illustrious Men, chapter 69, against Nepos the bishop, who in his writings asserts a bodily reign of a thousand years; in which he also disputes most diligently concerning the Apocalypse of John. The cause of writing these books for Dionysius was this: Nepos, a certain Egyptian bishop, had taught that the reign of Christ, full of bodily delights, would last on earth after the general resurrection of bodies for the space of a thousand years, whence also the followers of this opinion were called Millenarians or Chiliasts, and had striven to establish this doctrine of his, which Cerinthus and Papias and others before him had held almost from the very beginning of the Church, with arguments drawn for the most part from the Apocalypse, and especially from its chapter 20.

[2] the Saint wrote these, Eusebius teaches this; But when the orthodox had continually replied and contended that the oracles of the Apocalypse were to be taken in a spiritual and allegorical sense, Nepos composed a book on that question, which he inscribed ἔλεγχον ἀλληγοριστῶν, that is, Refutation of the allegorists, received everywhere with such great favour in the Arsinoite tract of Egypt that, a schism having been made, whole churches fell away from the right faith. Thus Nepos, here mentioned, who had already been dead some while, or rather his book on the refutation of the allegorists, impelled Dionysius to compose, for the sake of refuting Nepos, the aforesaid two books On the Promises, setting forth in the first his own opinion, and in the second disputing concerning the Apocalypse. The cause of writing, says Eusebius in the place just cited, was furnished by a certain Nepos, a bishop of Egypt, who taught that the promises made to holy men in the divine Volumes were to be set forth in a Jewish sense, and affirmed that there would be on this earth some space of a thousand years, full of bodily delights; and since he thought he could establish his opinion from the Revelation of John (the Apocalypse, namely), he inscribed the book which he had composed on this question Refutation of the allegorists. This, then, Dionysius sharply attacks in the books On the Promises.

[3] but the Saint himself In this manner Eusebius sets out the cause which impelled Dionysius to write the said books On the Promises. But the Saint himself teaches us more distinctly for what reason chiefly he was induced to compose that Work. For Eusebius, in the place cited above, exhibits a notable Fragment of the second book On the Promises. And in this the Saint writes thus: Since (the followers of Nepos) bring forward a certain book (called Refutation of the Allegorists) of Nepos, on which indeed they greatly rely, as though in it it were demonstrated by most certain arguments that the reign of Christ will be on earth; in very many other things indeed I praise and love Nepos, both on account of his faith and on account of his diligence and study of the Scriptures; lastly on account of the manifold chants of psalms, in which very many of the brethren even now greatly delight, and I pursue the man with great honour and reverence, especially for this very reason, that he has departed from this life: but I love the truth more, and judge that it is to be preferred to all things. For those things indeed which have been rightly said we ought to praise and approve without envy: but if anything has been written otherwise, it is fitting that it be examined and corrected by us. And if he himself (Nepos, namely) were present, and promulgated his opinion by living voice, perhaps a simple unwritten conversation would suffice, by which through questions and answers the adversaries would be convinced and recalled to their former concord.

[4] sets out more distinctly in the second book On the Promises, But since the book has been published, and is, as it seems to some, most fitted for persuading; and since certain teachers make nothing indeed of the Law and the Prophets; neglect to follow the Gospels; despise the Epistles of the Apostles: but vaunt the doctrine of this book (the Refutation of the Allegorists) as some great and hidden mystery, and do not allow certain simpler ones among our brethren to think anything sublime and magnificent either of the glorious and altogether divine coming of our Lord, or of our resurrection and our gathering to Christ and assimilation to Him; but bid them think in the kingdom of God of certain light and mortal things, and such as men now are wont to hope for; it is necessary that I undertake a disputation against my brother Nepos as though present. So St. Dionysius himself, distinctly setting out the causes for which he draws his pen against Nepos, and at the same time teaching by his example with what mind one ought to write against errors. Furthermore, the manner in which Dionysius speaks of Nepos in the words recited in the preceding number also makes me doubt whether what is asserted in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column 832, in these words, concerning Nepos, who is there called Nepotianus, condemned and cast out after his death by Dionysius in a synod which he celebrated at Alexandria, agrees with the truth: A divine and holy provincial synod, gathered at Alexandria by the same Dionysius, which condemned and after death cast out Nepotianus, bishop of Egypt, and Cerinthus, as asserting, and involving in that error * very many others, that the kingdom of Christ is in an earthly Jerusalem, and teaching the thousand years, and besides requiring sacrifices of oxen and slaughterings of sheep as lawful. Compare these, studious reader, with the words of Dionysius concerning Nepos transcribed here in the preceding number, and form your own judgment on the matter. I proceed to other things which Dionysius treats in the second book On the Promises, already cited.

[5] The error of Nepos had infected very many chiefly in the Arsinoite tract of Egypt, in which also how, from the error of Nepos, of which Nepos had perhaps been bishop, and there were there whole churches which, a schism having been made, had separated themselves from others who did not think the same with them concerning an earthly reign of Christ to last a thousand years. This evil had already held for a long time. But lest it should creep farther and acquire greater strength, Dionysius, as the one to whose patriarchate the aforesaid tract belonged, betakes himself there, in order at length to remove altogether, by a timely and efficacious remedy, the inveterate disease which by its contagion was infecting more and more always. And what the Saint did there, how he came into conference with those who followed the errors of Nepos, and brought them to the knowledge of the truth, he himself sets out in his said second book On the Promises, exalting exceedingly the ardent zeal of the Arsinoites for knowing the truth, and sketching the conference he had with them in such colours that from them it easily appears that nothing more prudent, nothing more pleasing, nothing more composed for Christian charity and at the same time for sincerity in investigating the truth could be devised. I transcribe here the words of the Saint which in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 24, are subjoined almost immediately to the words recited here at numbers 3 and 4, and which will confirm what has already been said. When I was, he says, in the Arsinoite prefecture, in which, as you know, this opinion (of Nepos) had long since become prevalent, so that schisms and defections of whole churches took place, having called together the presbyters and teachers who preached to the brethren through the several villages, the brethren likewise being present who had wished to attend, I exhorted them that that doctrine (which Nepos had delivered) should be examined openly in assembly, and when they had set this book (of Nepos, namely, on the Refutation of the Allegorists) against me as a kind of shield and impregnable wall, sitting with them three continuous days from first light until evening, I undertook to discuss whatever things were written in that book.

[6] he brought the Arsinoites to the acknowledgment of the truth, he narrates, Then indeed I greatly admired the constancy of the brethren, and their most ardent zeal for knowing the truth, and their docility and intelligence. So moderately and in order were questions and grounds of doubt and assents made by us. And we took care studiously that we should not obstinately defend those things which had once pleased us, although, or rather, as the sense requires, if they were found to be false, nor did we evade the objections of others; but, as far as could be done, we tried to press on to and establish those things concerning which the disputation had been undertaken; but if we had been convinced by reasons, we were not ashamed to change our opinion and to assent to others. Rather with a good conscience, without any dissimulation, our hearts opened to God, whatever things by most certain arguments

and by the authority of sacred Scripture had been confirmed, we accepted. And finally at length Coracion, who had been the author and standard-bearer, or rather, as the Greek text allows, the leader and persuader, of this doctrine, in the hearing of all the brethren who were present, promised and protested to us that he would not henceforth embrace this opinion (which Nepos had taught), nor dispute about it, nor speak of it, nor preach it to the people; since he had been convinced sufficiently and more than enough by the opposing arguments. And to the brethren who were present this disputation, and the reconciliation and agreement of all among themselves, brought no moderate pleasure.

[7] [nor yet does it supply anything from which you may certainly conclude that these were anchorites] In this manner Dionysius, as he himself teaches by these words already recited, brought the Arsinoites, or, as others write, Arsenoites, to the acknowledgment of the truth; in which matter the dexterity and industry of the Saint shone out wonderfully, and no less did the rare docility of the Arsinoites and the sincere readiness of their minds to acknowledge the truth shine forth. For how few are there who in a public contest confess themselves convicted of error, and easily promise before a numerous assembly that they will henceforth be vigorous champions of the truth which they formerly rejected and attacked? For this certainly the highest zeal for truth is required, joined with equal humility of mind. Our Bolland, in volume 2 of January, in the Commentary on the Life of St. Antony, number 12, and some others think that the Arsinoites already mentioned were anchorites of the kind of those who, as St. Athanasius testifies in the Life of St. Antony, at that very time, that is, in the third century of the Christian era, when, as it was already growing old, Antony was made a monk, in order to give themselves solely and seriously to their salvation, were wont to withdraw into solitary places near the villages: and the said Bolland and others seem to have judged this both from the fact that they encountered Dionysius with such prudence and sincerity, such readiness to lay aside error, such humility and modesty of mind as we have already shown; and from the fact that he calls those with whom Dionysius held the conference in the Arsinoite tract Brethren, and reports that these brethren among the Arsinoites chiefly (see the words recited at number 5) were settled in the several villages, and are hinted by Dionysius to have praised God with various psalms and hymns (see the words transcribed here at number 3). But these reasons by no means seem to me sufficient that I should pronounce without doubt on account of them that the Arsinoites whom Dionysius convicted of error and led to the acknowledgment of the truth were anchorites. For why could not those excellent virtues which Dionysius admired in the Arsinoites shine out in Christians, even if not anchorites? Nor do I see what Bolland and others can conclude for their opinion from the fact that Dionysius calls brethren those with whom he held the conference in the Arsinoite tract. For Dionysius, as will be plain to one who considers the Fragments of his Works in Eusebius, books 6 and 7, understands Christians by brethren, nor does he affirm that the brethren of whom he speaks were settled among the Arsinoites in villages or hamlets, but that he called together, or invited to the conference, the presbyters and teachers who governed the Christians in them.

[8] As regards the psalms and hymns with which Dionysius indicates that God was praised by those with whom he came into conference, or monks. I think that nothing is had from this either for referring the Arsinoites among the anchorites. For among the ancient Christians of every kind, and accordingly among those who were neither monks nor anchorites, the custom prevailed of composing in honour of Christ psalms and hymns, which, as is most probable, were recited in the churches. Psalms also and canticles of the brethren, says an ancient author in Eusebius, book 5, chapter 28, written long since by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, attributing Divinity to Him. Valois, in his Annotations to the said twenty-fourth chapter of book 7 of Eusebius, observes thus, opportunely for our purpose: Of these psalms (composed by Christians, or the faithful, in honour of Christ) mention is made in the letter of the council of Antioch (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 30, page 281) against Paul of Samosata; and in the penultimate canon of the council of Laodicea, where it is expressly forbidden that ἰδιωτικοὶ psalms, that is, those composed by private men, should be recited in Church. For this custom had prevailed, that many composed psalms in honour of Christ and caused them to be sung in church, as appears from the places noted above. Since, then, as becomes manifest from this Annotation of Valois and from what we said before it, this custom prevailed among the ancient Christians, that they composed hymns and psalms in honour of Christ and took care that they were recited in Church, it certainly seems that it cannot be concluded, from the hymns and psalms with which Dionysius affirms that those with whom he came into conference in the Arsinoite tract ran through the praises of God, that they were anchorites or monks. But let it now suffice to have discoursed of the Arsinoites whom Dionysius brought from error to the knowledge of the truth.

[9] I come to those things which Dionysius chiefly utters concerning the Apocalypse of John in his said second book On the Promises, [He further so disputes concerning the Apocalypse that he does not indeed repudiate it;] and which, since they prove the Saint's learning no less than the utmost modesty and humility joined with it, I would certainly not wish to pass over in silence. The Millenarians, or rather the followers of Nepos, built their assertions concerning the earthly thousand-year reign of Christ chiefly, as I have already shown above, upon the book of the Apocalypse of blessed John. Dionysius, therefore, being about to overturn chiefly this foundation of theirs, presently observes that that book had been rejected by most of those who had preceded him; yet he subjoins that he does not dare to do this, lest he should rashly repudiate a book which he did not understand and which others approved. But I, he says in Eusebius, book 7, chapter 25, would not dare altogether to reject that book (the Apocalypse of John), especially since many of the brethren make much of it. But conceiving an opinion of this kind about it, as though it exceeds the measure of my understanding, I think that a certain hidden and altogether admirable understanding of the several things lies concealed. For although I myself do not understand, I nevertheless suspect that some deeper sense underlies the words, and I do not measure and estimate them by my own judgment, but, attributing more to faith, I judge them to be more sublime than to be perceived by me. Nor do I condemn those things which I have not been able to understand; but rather I admire them the more because I cannot grasp them. With such modesty and at the same time veneration did Dionysius speak of the book of the Apocalypse, when it had not yet been ascribed by the Church to the canonical books, that the heretics ought to be covered with shame, who most impudently reject it, already acknowledged by the Church as a book written by divine inspiration, as an empty fabrication.

[10] yet he does not hold it as an undoubted Work of John the Apostle. Furthermore, since the Saint presently, as we have already seen, did not repudiate the book of the Apocalypse, and so left so far entire the foundation on which Nepos and his followers built their opinion, he then diligently, in order to overturn it utterly, examined the whole aforesaid book of the Apocalypse, or Revelation, and most openly showed that it could not be taken according to the literal or obvious sense of the words, as was done by Nepos and his followers, and so utterly weakened the support which they sought for their opinion from it. The reasons by which the Saint accomplished this Eusebius does not review in his Ecclesiastical History, but only affirms in general that what I have just said was done by Dionysius, and presently subjoins what the Saint then performs in the same second book On the Promises. And these are they: he confesses indeed that the book of the Apocalypse is the Work of a certain holy man inspired by the divine spirit, whose name was John; yet he does not admit for certain that that man is John the Apostle himself. That the book, he says in Eusebius in the place just cited, was written by John I do not deny. For I confess that the Work is of a certain holy man inspired by the divine spirit; but that he is the Apostle himself, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose is that Gospel which is inscribed According to John, and the Catholic Epistle, I would not easily concede. He then subjoins the reasons for which he does not certainly adjudge that Work to John the Apostle, and among these one is that it is perhaps to be ascribed to a certain man who for certain causes assumed the name of John. And I think indeed, he says again in the place just cited in Eusebius, that there were very many namesakes of John the Apostle, who, on account of their singular goodwill towards him, and because they admired and looked up to the man, and aspired to be loved by the Lord as he was, loved this surname, as we see many of the children of the faithful called by the names of Paul and Peter. So Dionysius, sufficiently hinting by those things which he presently adds that he doubts whether the Apocalypse is the Work of John the Apostle or of another holy man who assumed the name of John for the cause which the words just recited indicate.

[11] Jerome, when he says that Dionysius wrote against Irenaeus, The remaining reasons for which he believed besides that the Apocalypse was not to be attributed to John the Apostle I do not transcribe here. They can be seen in Eusebius, in the book and chapter already often cited. Let it suffice to have said that by them the thing which Dionysius contends is by no means proved, since they can both be easily refuted, and have in fact already been often refuted by the learned. Nor is there reason why anyone should on this account think the learning of Dionysius to be made less of; for it was easy in the age of Dionysius for even the wisest to be mistaken in this matter, which was not then yet endowed with that light which it afterwards had. Nor have Men conspicuous at once for learning and sanctity always been free from error. How true this is St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in the second century of the Christian era, most illustrious for his writings, clearly teaches us by his example, which also pertains to our purpose and is therefore to be recorded here at greater length. For he, which is certainly very wonderful, embraced that erroneous opinion already mentioned concerning the earthly thousand-year reign of Christ. St. Jerome teaches us this, writing thus in the Prologue to book 18 on Isaiah: To pass over the others, I shall make mention only of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against whom a most eloquent man, Dionysius, Pontiff of the church of Alexandria, writes an elegant book, deriding the fable of the thousand years. So Jerome, by these words, as appears certain, designating also the Work written by Dionysius against Nepos and those who followed the same opinion as he concerning the earthly thousand-year reign of Christ. For since the Work written by Dionysius against Nepos fought equally against all the Millenarians, and one of these, as the words of Jerome just recited indicate, was Irenaeus, it follows that it likewise fought against him. Hence nothing prevents Jerome from being believed to have spoken of that Work when he says in the words just recited that an elegant book was written by Dionysius, in which he derides the fable of the thousand years, or the fables of the Millenarians.

[12] Indeed, that of that very Work Jerome

spoke in the same place seems to designate his books On the Promises, seems to be concluded from this, that neither Eusebius nor Jerome himself, in his Treatise on the Illustrious Writers of the Church, anywhere makes mention of any Work distinct from the Work already mentioned against Nepos, in which it might appear in any way likely that Dionysius derided the fable of the thousand years, or the fables of the Millenarians. Valois, in the Notes to chapter 24 of book 7 of Eusebius, at the beginning of this chapter, in which we are taught that Dionysius wrote two books On the Promises against Nepos, observes thus: Since it is established from this place that the book of Dionysius of Alexandria On the Promises was written against Nepos, a bishop of Egypt, I wonder that Jerome, in the Preface of book 18 of the Commentaries on Isaiah, affirms that that book was written by Dionysius against Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus was indeed of the number of those who believed that the reign of Christ would be on earth for the space of a thousand years, because Papias had persuaded them of it, as the same Jerome writes in the Catalogue and our Eusebius at the end of book 3. But the book of Dionysius was not written against Irenaeus, but against Nepos, as is plain both from this place of Eusebius and from Jerome himself in the book on ecclesiastical writers, where he speaks of Dionysius. By which words this writer most openly agrees with the opinion by which we judge that the very Work composed by Dionysius against Nepos is designated by Jerome in the words recited in the preceding number, although meanwhile he at the same time asserts that he wonders that Jerome affirms the said Work to have been written not against Nepos but against Irenaeus: to which difficulty objected by Valois it is easily answered by saying that the said Work (see what I discussed in the preceding number) is asserted by Jerome to have been written against Irenaeus for this reason, that it was written against all the millenarians, and accordingly also against Irenaeus, who was of their number.

[13] as also Theodoritus, when he affirms that the Saint wrote against Cerinthus. Perhaps it can also be said that Irenaeus was specially refuted in that Work, or even cited by name as one of the Millenarians, so that, if this was in fact done in the said Work, it ought to occasion less wonder that Jerome affirms that it was written against Irenaeus. Theodoritus, in book 2 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 3, writes thus of Cerinthus, who, as some contend, was the first author of the silly opinion of the Millenarians: Against this Cerinthus there wrote not only those whom we mentioned before, but with them also Gaius and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. By which words I think that the Work of Dionysius written against Nepos is likewise designated by Theodoritus, and that both on account of what has already been said of the same Work designated by Jerome, and also from the fact that Dionysius in fact makes mention of Cerinthus in his books On the Promises; when, namely, speaking in book 2 of those who before him had repudiated the book of the Apocalypse as an offspring falsely fathered on John the Apostle, he writes thus: Moreover they say that the inscription of the book (of the Apocalypse, or Revelation) is false; for its author is not John; nor is it a revelation; since it is covered over with so thick and so opaque a veil of ignorance. And they affirm that not only none of the Apostles, but not even any of the holy and ecclesiastical men was the founder of this little book; for that Cerinthus, who fashioned the sect of his name, when he wished to prefix the name of great authority to his fabrications in order to win credit, set the title of John on his Work; for that this was the opinion of Cerinthus, that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly, and would consist chiefly in those things which he himself, as being carnal and given to the pleasures of the body, chiefly desired: namely in the satiety of the belly and of the things that are below the belly, that is, in foods and drinks, in marriages, and in those things by which he thought these could be procured more honourably; namely feasts and sacrifices and slaughterings of victims. So Dionysius of Cerinthus, on the occasion of the discourse which he frames of those who rejected the book of the Apocalypse; nor indeed does it appear unlike the truth that Dionysius, in those places in which he chiefly refutes Nepos in the said Work, also made mention of Cerinthus by name; so that even from this it becomes sufficiently probable that Theodoret, in the words recited above, spoke of the Work written by Dionysius against Nepos.

* in error

CHAPTER II.

On the letters of Dionysius to Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolis, and especially on his letter to him, divided into four heads, which has been brought by the Greeks into the sacred canons.

The letter of Dionysius to Basilides, divided into four heads or canons: Dionysius wrote various letters to Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolis in Egypt. He himself besides, says Eusebius of Dionysius in book 7, chapter 26, in the letter which he wrote to Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolis, testifies that he composed a Commentary on the beginning of the book which is called Ecclesiastes. Furthermore he has left us various letters written to this Basilides also. But all these, as also most other monuments of intellect composed by our Saint, have utterly perished through the injury of the times, only the letter which is commonly called canonical being excepted. This, as also the other letters given to Basilides, cannot be brought back to a certain epoch, and the treatment to be held of it therefore had to be referred here. It is found inserted entire, or, what it is right to say of almost no other Work of Dionysius, mutilated in absolutely no part of itself, in volume 1 of the Councils in Labbe, in volume 3 of the Bibliotheca of the Holy Fathers of the Lyons edition, and in some other printed Works. It consists of four answers to as many questions proposed to Dionysius by Basilides concerning ecclesiastical discipline. These four answers of the Saint were afterwards, although Dionysius did not give them with that intention, brought by the Greek church into the canons, or rules to be kept by the faithful. Since almost no other monument of learning composed by Dionysius survives entire, as I have already said, it is pleasing to transcribe here the said canonical letter entire, as it is found inserted in volume 1 of Labbe's Councils, so that even thus I may exhibit a certain specimen of the intellect in which Dionysius excelled, likewise divided into the said four canons, on which certain things are to be observed.

[15] This inscription is prefixed to the letter: Dionysius to Basilides, my beloved son and brother, fellow minister in sacred things, [in the first of these, that the Paschal fast is not to be broken before the hour at which the Lord rose,] and faithful and obedient to God, greeting in the Lord; where it is to be noted that Basilides, although a bishop, is called son by Dionysius, which is also afterwards repeated in the course of the letter. Dionysius probably uses this appellation because he himself, as patriarch of Alexandria, was the spiritual father, or metropolitan, of Basilides, bishop of the Pentapolitan tract in Egypt. This having been noted beforehand, I now come to the first head, or canon, of the letter. Basilides had asked Dionysius at what hour on the day of Pascha the fast was to be broken. For some contended that this was to be done on the very day of Pascha at the morning cock-crow; others on the contrary on the evening immediately preceding. And to this first question the Saint answers thus: You have sent to me, my most faithful and most wise son, asking at what hour on the day of Pascha the fast is to be broken. For you say that some brethren say that this ought to be done at cock-crow; but others that it is to be done in the evening. For the brethren who are at Rome, as they say, wait for the cock. But of those who are here you have said that they do it sooner. And you seek to impose an exact and very measured hour, which is in the first place difficult and slippery. For that it is fitting to begin the feast and the joy after the time of the Resurrection of the Lord, until then humbling our souls with fasting, will be likewise admitted by all.

[16] the Saint determined. But since this is not certain from the Evangelists, But by the things which you have written you have proved (having truly well perceived the sense of the divine Gospels) that nothing appears definitely defined by them concerning the hour at which He rose. For the Evangelists wrote diversely that they came to the tomb, the times being changed, and all said that they found the Lord already risen. "Both in the evening of the Sabbaths," as Matthew said, and "when it was still dark in the morning," as John writes: "And very early at dawn," as Luke: "And very early in the morning, the sun being already risen," as Mark; and when indeed He rose, none answered openly. But that those who came to the tomb from the evening of the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, until the rising of the sun on the first day of the week (or the day after the Sabbath) found Him no longer lying there, this is admitted. And let us not think that the Evangelists disagree or oppose one another: but although there seems to be some small controversy about that which is inquired, if, all agreeing that our Lord, the light of the world, arose in one night, they disagree about the hour; let us nevertheless strive piously and faithfully to reconcile the things that were said by them.

[17] that all these place the resurrection of the Lord on the Lord's day That which was said by Matthew runs thus: "But in the evening of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre, and behold, a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord, having descended from heaven, coming rolled back the stone, and sat upon it: and his appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards were shaken, and became as dead men. And the angel answering said to the women: Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus who was crucified: He is not here. For He is risen, as He said." And that which was said, In the evening; some indeed will think, according to the common use of the word, signifies the evening of the Sabbath: but the wiser, hearing it, will say that it is not this, but deep night, the word evening signifying lateness and a long time. And because he means night and not evening, he subjoins: As it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, and they came, not yet, as the others say, bearing spices, but to see the sepulchre. And they found that an earthquake had happened, and the angel sitting on the stone, and they heard from him: He is not here, He is risen.

[18] before the rising of the sun, he shows; Likewise John: "On the first day of the week," he says, "Mary Magdalene comes in the morning, while it was yet dark, to the tomb, and sees the stone taken away from the tomb." But according to him, "while it was yet dark," He had gone before. And Luke says: "On the Sabbath indeed they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bearing the spices which they had prepared: and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb." Very early in the morning perhaps signifies the morning brightness of the first day of the week, which first dimly appears. And therefore, the Sabbath having now perfectly passed with the whole following night, and another day beginning, they came, bearing spices and ointments. Whence it is plain that He had risen long before. Mark also follows this, saying: "They bought spices,

that coming they might anoint Jesus, and very early in the morning on the first day of the week they come to the tomb, the sun being already risen." For here too he said very early in the morning, which is the same as at earliest dawn, and he subjoined, The sun being already risen. Their setting out indeed and their journey began at earliest dawn and very early in the morning; but on the way and about the tomb they spent time until the rising of the sun; and to them then indeed the young man clothed in white says: "He is risen, He is not here."

[19] These things being so, to those who consider this more accurately and subtly and hence that the Paschal fast, before the midnight we declare at what hour, or even at what half-hour, or quarter of an hour, one ought to begin the joy on account of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead; and those indeed who hasten too much and break the fast before midnight we reprehend as negligent and intemperate, as those who have broken off the course almost before it was fitting, as the Wise Man says, "That is not little in life which is little short." But those who defer, and endure very much, and bravely abstain up to the fourth watch, in which also the Saviour appeared walking on the sea, we receive as generous and enduring of labours: and those who in the meantime rest as they were moved, or as they were able, we are not very hard upon, since not all endure the six days of fasts with equal or similar endurance: but some pass through them all, remaining fasting, others two, others three, others four, others none. And to those indeed who have laboured greatly in passing through them, and then have become weary and are almost failing, it is to be pardoned that they taste food sooner.

[20] But if any, having not only not passed through, but not even fasted, preceding Pascha, he pronounces is not to be broken. or even having spent the four preceding days in delicate and sumptuous banquets, when they have come to the last two days, and those alone, having passed through the Parasceve and the Sabbath without tasting food, think they do something great and remarkable if they have remained so until dawn; I do not think that they have undergone an equal contest with those who have exercised themselves for several days before. These things indeed I have written, as I think, giving counsel concerning this. In these words, and chiefly in those which have been recited in this and the preceding number, the first canon of Dionysius's canonical letter to Basilides is framed, in which the Saint, as appears, solely answers Basilides's question, which he had proposed to him, that the Paschal, or rather ante-Paschal, fast is not to be broken before the midnight which immediately precedes Pascha, and yet does not pronounce those who did so sooner guilty of violating the fast. Indeed, those who, greatly weakened by long fasting and all but fainting, take some food before the said time he exempts from absolutely all fault, affirming that they are to be pardoned. Hence it is further understood with how severe and rigid a fast the Christians, in the third century of the Christian era, in which Dionysius flourished, prepared themselves for worthily celebrating the Paschal festivity. Nor do we learn only this from the words of the said canon; but also that not one and the same manner of fasting was observed by all, since some abstained from absolutely all food for six entire days immediately preceding Pascha, others four, others three, others two, others none; from which inequality, and chiefly from the fact that Dionysius does not accuse of grave sin even those who passed no day at all fasting without any food, it is to be concluded that that rigid fast of several days, with which some Christians were then wont to macerate themselves, abstaining from absolutely all food for the space of several days, was undertaken by them not from precept but from a pious feeling of devotion towards the Lord's passion and resurrection. Furthermore, although Dionysius, as you will easily gather from what has already been said, here makes his discourse only of the stricter fast usually observed in his age on the six days immediately preceding Pascha, it does not follow that at that time, as some heretics contend, the Lenten fast was not observed equally with that of these six days.

[21] [In the second canon he teaches that women suffering what is customary to their sex are to be kept from sacred communion,] And these are the things which chiefly occur to be noted concerning the said first canon. I proceed to the second. This contains a doctrine, as we shall see, by no means to be approved. Basilides had asked Dionysius whether women who are in separation should be permitted to enter the churches and approach the sacred Communion. Before I deliver the Saint's answer, I signify who those women are that are in separation. The Hebrew women, says Balsamon in the Notes on this letter of Dionysius, when they have had the menstrual flow, rest sitting in a solitary place until seven days have passed, and the flow of the menses has stopped, purged away. Whence that expression, IN SEPARATION, was taken for their being separated from the seat of the others as unclean. The Saint, then, asked whether it was lawful for women in separation, or suffering what is customary to their sex, to enter the churches or approach the sacred Communion, answers thus: But concerning the Women who are in separation, whether, being so affected, they ought to enter the house of God, I think it superfluous even to ask. For neither, I judge, if they are pious and faithful, will they, being so affected, dare either to approach the holy Table or to touch the Body and Blood of the Lord. For neither did she who suffered a flow of twelve years, hastening to the cure, touch the Lord Himself, but only His fringe. For to pray, however one may be, and however affected, to remember the Lord, and to implore help, is not to be reprehended. But he who is not pure in soul and body shall be forbidden to approach the Holy of Holies. So our Saint, wishing that a woman should not approach to receive the sacred Eucharist at the time of menstrual blood; which afterwards also very many of the Greeks tenaciously retained, as sanctioned by an Apostolic canon. But this doctrine, although dictated by the utmost veneration towards the Eucharist and sacred things, can nevertheless by no means be admitted, be it said without any dishonour to our Saint, and Dionysius did not deliver it, as we shall presently show, with the intention that it should be admitted by all.

[22] to which doctrine Pope Gregory the Great a doctrine Far otherwise, and certainly more advisedly, did Pope Gregory I, surnamed the Great, answer a similar, or rather the same, question. Augustine, bishop of the English, had asked him whether it was permitted to a woman, if she were held by the menstrual custom, to enter the church or to receive the Sacrament of the sacred Communion. And to this question, or rather to its former part concerning the entry into the church of a woman who suffers the menses, Gregory indeed (see volume 2 of his Works, reprinted at Paris in the year 1705, column 1158 and following) answers in this manner: A woman, while she suffers the menses according to custom, ought not to be forbidden to enter the church: because the superfluity of nature cannot be imputed to her as a fault; and on account of what she suffers unwillingly, it is not just that she be deprived of entry into the church. For we know that the woman who suffered a flow of blood, coming humbly behind the Lord, touched the fringe of His garment, and at once her infirmity departed from her. If, then, one placed in a flow of blood could laudably touch the Lord's garment, why may not she who suffers the menstrual blood be permitted to enter the Lord's church? But you will say, infirmity compelled the former; but custom constrains these of whom we speak. But consider, dearest brother, that everything we suffer in this mortal flesh from the infirmity of nature has been ordained by the worthy judgment of God after sin. For to hunger and thirst, to be hot, to be cold, to grow weary, is from the infirmity of nature. And what else is it to seek food against hunger, drink against thirst, breezes against heat, clothing against cold, rest against weariness, than to search out certain medicines against sicknesses? For to women the menstrual flow of their blood also is a sickness. If, then, she presumed well who, placed in weakness, touched the Lord's garment, why should not that which is granted to one person who is infirm (infirm, or sick) be granted to all women who are infirm through the defect of their nature? So indeed Gregory to the former part of the question proposed.

[23] And to the second, in which it had been asked whether it was lawful for a woman who suffers what is customary to her sex delivers one altogether opposed. to approach the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, he answers thus in the place just cited: But (a woman) ought not to be forbidden to receive the mystery of the holy Communion on the same days on which she labours under the menstrual custom. If, however, out of great veneration she does not presume to receive, she is to be praised; but if she has received, she is not to be judged. For it is the mark of good minds even there in some way to acknowledge their faults where there is no fault, because often that is done without fault which comes from fault. Whence also when we hunger we eat without fault, we to whom, from the fault of the first man, it has come about that we hunger. For the menstrual custom is not any fault to women, namely because it happens naturally; but yet, because nature itself has been vitiated, so that it seems to be polluted even without the application of the will, the defect comes from fault, in which human nature may recognize itself, what it has been made by the judge, so that man, who of his own will committed the fault, may bear unwillingly the guilt of the fault. And therefore women, when they consider themselves in the menstrual custom, if they do not presume to approach the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood, are to be praised for their right consideration. But when, from the custom of a religious life, they are carried away by love of receiving the same Mystery, they are not, as we have said, to be restrained. For as in the old Testament outward works were observed, so in the new Testament it is not so much what is done outwardly as what is thought inwardly that is attended to with anxious attention, that it may be punished by a subtle sentence. Thus far Gregory, then subjoining some other things too bearing on this, which I, since the matter is sufficiently manifest from the reasons of Gregory already adduced, omit for the sake of brevity.

[24] [In the third canon, concerning continence to be observed by married persons, now old, that they may give themselves to prayer,] Now, studious reader, weigh with an even balance the reasons by which the answer of our Saint and that of Pope Gregory to the question proposed are supported, and I do not doubt that you will pronounce that one must agree with Gregory. I meanwhile proceed to the third head, or canon, of the letter to Basilides. This proposes to married persons, now old, almost the same things concerning continence to be observed in order to give themselves to prayer which Paul the Apostle, in the 1st epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7, proposes in general to all married persons. It is framed in these words: Furthermore those also who have grown old ought to be fit judges of themselves. For that it is fitting that they abstain from one another by consent for a time, in order to give themselves to prayer, and come together again, they have heard Paul (in the place just cited) saying. Balsamon

observes thus on this canon: As is likely, the Saint had been asked whether he admits that married persons who have grown old should abstain from union at the time when they ought to pray, and he says that those who are such ought to be their own judges, and sometimes abstain from one another by consent, or by common will; namely, that at the time when they have determined to pray they should live in all continence, and come together again. For the great Paul also determined this. And the canon indeed speaks of those who have grown old; but it is also to be understood of all married persons. And rightly he said: BY CONSENT: for neither does the husband have power over his own body, nor the wife, according to the great Apostle. And after a few things: But someone will say, since the canon says that married persons are to be separated in order to give themselves to prayer, and the Apostle defines that we ought to pray without ceasing, ought those who live together always to abstain? But it is not a question of any prayer whatever; but of the better and more excellent, namely that of the holy fasts. For through Moses God commanded the Jews, when they were about to hear the Divine voices on the mountain, to abstain from their own wives. And the prophet Joel: "Sanctify," he says, "a fast, and let the bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride from her bridal room." But these things being so, I do not see to what penalties those are subjected who do not observe these things. Thus far the said Balsamon; and although not rightly in every respect, he nevertheless rightly hints at last that married persons are not subjected to penalties who do not observe the things which are contained in the third canon of our Saint transcribed here above. For these are not of precept but only of counsel, and are left to the discretion of those to whom they are proposed.

[25] [in the fourth he treats of the approach to Holy Communion of those who have suffered pollution by night.] It remains that I now treat of the fourth canon of the letter to Basilides. This regards those who have suffered pollution in sleep. Basilides, namely, had asked Dionysius whether it was lawful for such to approach the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. And the Saint leaves this to the proper dictate of their conscience. Here are the words: But those who have been in an involuntary nocturnal flow, let them also follow their own conscience, and consider themselves, whether they are in doubt about it or not. As in foods, he who doubts, says the Holy Apostle (Paul, namely, to the Romans 14, verse 23), if he eats, is condemned: in these things also let him who approaches God be of good conscience, and speak freely according to his own thought. St. Gregory the Pope, cited above, to the same question which Augustine, bishop of the English, had proposed to him, in the second volume of his Works, in the place cited above, uses indeed a far fuller answer, and in it sets out in what case he who has suffered nocturnal pollution has a polluted conscience and in what case he has not; yet he teaches nothing which conflicts with the canon of our Saint just recited. The father being asked, says the said Balsamon of Dionysius in the Notes to this canon, whether those who have suffered an involuntary flow of seed ought to be partakers of the Sacraments, said that those who have suffered this should have their own conscience as judge, so that, if this befell them with no preceding disturbance of mind, nature of its own accord expelling this flux as an excrement, they are not hindered from being partakers of the Sacraments. But if in any, from a disturbance of reason, desire went before, and the emission followed it, or this came about from intemperance of food and drink, these are not pure, not on account of the flow of seed (for this is not unclean, as neither is the flesh of which it is an excrement), but on account of the evil thought which pollutes the mind. He who is such does not have a good conscience, and therefore does not have power to approach God, that is, the sacred Communion. Thus far Balsamon, whose words too are to be taken here in a sound sense, as will easily become evident to one who considers them more attentively.

[26] I meanwhile, in order to transcribe here entire the letter to Basilides according to my purpose, and at length he ends the letter with a notable clause, which is recited here, subjoin to its four heads or canons already recited the notable clause also with which it is terminated. It runs thus: These questions you indeed have proposed to us, honouring us (for you are not ignorant, O beloved), preparing us to be of the same opinion, as indeed we are, and of the same mind, that is, that you may preserve the concord of opinions and of minds which exists even between us. But I, not as a teacher, but as it befits us to discourse with one another in all simplicity, have set forth my opinion in common: and when you have examined it, my most wise son, you will write back what has appeared to you just and better, or whether you too think so concerning these things. I wish you farewell, my beloved son, ministering to the Lord in peace. So Dionysius in the clause of the letter; from which certainly, as I forewarned before would be the case, it becomes manifest that the Saint did not answer the questions proposed by Basilides with the design of prescribing canons or laws to be observed by the whole Church. For since he left his answers to be examined and judged by another's discretion (see the words just recited), he most openly hints that those are by no means to be condemned by him who should think that something contrary to them is to be defined or observed. Moreover, in the said clause the rare modesty of the Saint, joined with humility, again shines out wonderfully. For in it, arrogating to himself not at all the authority of a master, he speaks with such humility of mind as though for absolutely no cause anything deserved to be deferred to his answers. Meanwhile, by the rare merit of his virtues, by the dignity of the chair which he occupied, by learning altogether distinguished, by very advanced age, by the glorious confession of faith by which he had become illustrious under Decius and Valerian, he had acquired for himself a great name with all and no small authority.

[27] And hence most probably it came about that the four heads of Dionysius's letter to Basilides transcribed here above were constantly brought by the Eastern church among the sacred canons or rules of ecclesiastical discipline, whose four heads were brought by the Greeks into the sacred canons. as I have already advised before. Of these beyond all doubt the Eastern bishops who subscribed the Quinisext, or Trullan, council make discourse, when they record thus in Labbe, volume 6 of the Councils, column 1141: Moreover (we receive) the canons of Dionysius, who was archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians. And although the Quinisext, or Trullan, council was by no means legitimate, since it was not convoked by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, nor did a legate preside in his name, it is at least made known from it that the authority of Dionysius was of great weight with the huge number of Eastern bishops who are found subscribed to the said conciliabulum, so that even from this it may be plain that the aforementioned four heads of the letter of Dionysius were counted by the Greek, or Eastern, church among the sacred canons of ecclesiastical discipline, although meanwhile the doctrine which is contained in the second canon is not to be approved, as we have already shown at length above. For the rest, Theodorus Peltanus, a priest of the Society of Jesus, in the year 1580 at Ingolstadt, published under this title, Letter on the Lord's Resurrection and the term of the Paschal fast, a letter marked with the name of Dionysius of Alexandria, and afterwards François Combefis brought this under the same title into the Bibliotheca concionatoria; but it is to be noted that it is not to be distinguished from the canonical letter of the Saint given to Basilides, already transcribed here entire, which, since the difference of title has deceived some, it has pleased me still to note here before I proceed to the following chapter of this Appendix.

CHAPTER III.

On two letters of Dionysius, one given to Theotecnus, the other to Origen, and whether the Saint ever attacked the latter with his pen.

The letter of Dionysius to Origen on martyrdom, Among the letters, or books or booklets in epistolary form, written by Dionysius there is certainly to be enumerated the booklet which he gave to Origen on martyrdom. Eusebius, in book 6, chapter 46, enumerating various letters and books written by Dionysius, records thus: There is also a booklet (of Dionysius, namely) on martyrdom written to Origen. Jerome agrees with Eusebius in the book On the Illustrious Writers of the Church, likewise counting among the Works composed by Dionysius a book on martyrdom written to Origen, so that it is not to be doubted that the Saint in fact wrote a letter to Origen treating of martyrdom. And the cause or occasion on which the Saint wrote the said letter it is right to gather from the very argument on which it was written; it is asserted, namely, both by Jerome and by Eusebius, just cited, to have been written on martyrdom, so that, as all the learned confess with unanimous consent, it was written by Dionysius, who had been a disciple of Origen, to him when he was in torments or in prison for the cause of the faith, in order to relieve the mind of his master wasting with grief and misery, and to afford the place of solace to him from whom he had more than once received the wished-for light in obscure and hidden matters. But although it is not doubtful that the said letter to Origen was written on the occasion of the prison and chains which he suffered for the cause of the faith, it may nevertheless be doubted about what time, or in what persecution, that most celebrated man suffered the chains and torments on the occasion of which he received the aforesaid letter from Dionysius. Whatever may have seemed to some, I think that Origen suffered these while the Decian persecution was raging.

[29] For Eusebius, in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 39, relates was written in the year 249 or in one of the two following; what various persons suffered in the fury of the Decian persecution; and concerning Origen he writes thus in the same place: Furthermore, what and how great things befell Origen in that persecution (of Decius), and what was the outcome of all these, while the most wicked demon moved all his forces more urgently against him (Origen), and attacked him with every engine and strength, and rushed upon him chiefly before all the rest who were assailed at that time: what also and how great things that man endured for the doctrine of Christ, namely chains and tortures of body, and in the innermost recess of the prison the hardships of the iron collar, and how for the space of many days his feet were stretched in the stocks up to the interval of four holes; moreover the threats of fire, and whatever else was inflicted by his enemies he bravely sustained, and of what kind at length was the outcome of these things, the judge striving ambitiously with all the effort of his strength not to kill him: finally, what discourses afterwards, and how useful to those who need consolation, he left, his very many letters record no less truly than accurately. Thus far Eusebius, who seems to some learned men, and not undeservedly, to favour Origen here more than is fair; for Origen did not sustain with that fortitude of mind which this writer reports all the torments with which he was tortured under Decius; but, overcome by them, by the testimony of Epiphanius, he succumbed, and, having lapsed, fell away from the palm of martyrdom. However that may be, it is not of my undertaking to discuss this matter further. It suffices me that it is manifest from the words of Eusebius adduced that Origen suffered most grievously under Decius, and was long detained in prison. Hence further, since Origen only once torments and chains

is read to have suffered for the cause of the faith, I think it is to be concluded without any hesitation, which chiefly concerns this place, that the aforementioned letter of Dionysius to Origen was written while the Decian persecution was raging, so that, since this began to be set in motion towards the end of the year 249 or at the beginning of the following, and came to an end in the year 251, that letter was composed either in the year 249 or in one of the two following.

[30] I have, then, now the time at which it was written but of the other, on whose occasion that one is treated here, determined as nearly as possible. But, you will say, this letter was then written at the very time at which the letter to Domitius and Didymus mentioned in the Commentary was, and accordingly it should have been treated of in that very place where the latter was treated. I answer that the letter of Dionysius to Origen was not treated by me there for this reason, that, as I have already advised in the Commentary at number 98, another letter besides, written by Dionysius concerning Origen, was to be deferred to this Appendix, as one whose epoch is unknown, and I wished to set forth in a manner under one view the things which pertain to Origen as written by Dionysius of Alexandria. This, then, being noted beforehand, I now undertake to treat of this latter letter also. For since in the two preceding numbers of this chapter the epoch and argument of the letter given by Dionysius on martyrdom to Origen when he was in torments have been sufficiently treated, the next thing is that I should now treat also of the other letter, on whose occasion it was deferred to this Appendix. Gobarus, in Photius, in the Bibliotheca, codex 232, number XI, writes thus: Origen and Theognostus the great Athanasius of Alexandria admits in many books. And Titus of Bostra and Gregory the Theologian in their letters name the same Philocalus. And the Nyssene makes mention of him laudably, and Dionysius of Alexandria writes to this same man, and after his death, writing to Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, praises Origen; and Alexander of Hierapolis, writing to Origen, soothes him very much with words.

[31] the epoch is not held These things Gobarus in Photius, clearly teaching not only that a letter was given by Dionysius to Origen while he was still surviving among the living, but also that he, after he had died, was praised by him in a letter given to Theotecnus, prelate of Caesarea. Hence some learned men infer that what is asserted by some concerning a Treatise written by Dionysius against Origen altogether shrinks from the truth. What is to be established concerning this matter I have proposed to investigate in this present chapter. Yet before I do so, I show that the letter which Gobarus testifies in the words just recited was given by Dionysius to Theotecnus cannot be attached to any definite year or epoch, so that the studious reader may thus perceive why it had to be deferred to this Appendix. The said letter was written by Dionysius to Theotecnus either before or after he had already been raised to the chair of Caesarea in Palestine. If the first, since Theotecnus was nearly contemporary with Dionysius and certainly flourished before the year 250, it certainly cannot be determined in any way about what year the aforesaid letter was written: and if you would have it written to Theotecnus, as appears more probable, when he had already been created bishop of Caesarea, even this being granted it cannot be defined sufficiently certainly and accurately about what year it was composed. For first it is doubtful in what definite year Theotecnus was raised to the chair of Caesarea; secondly, between the year in which the promotion of Theotecnus to that chair happened and the year 265, in which Dionysius departed from the living, some years intervened, so that even on the hypothesis that Theotecnus, as some contend, was promoted to the chair of Caesarea about the year 260, it will still be doubtful in which determinate year of the six years which run from the year 260 up to the year 265, counting both extremes, the aforementioned letter was written.

[32] sufficiently ascertained; Furthermore, whence it becomes still more evident how doubtful is the epoch to which the letter of which we treat here is to be referred, it is doubtful whether Theotecnus was raised to the episcopal dignity not earlier than the year 260. I show this in this manner: Eusebius, where, in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 13, he frames his discourse on the peace which Gallienus restored to the churches of Egypt by sending to Dionysius, Pinna and others the rescript recited above in the Commentary, presently subjoins in the following chapter: At the same season Xystus still presided over the Roman Church; Demetrianus ruled that of Antioch after the death of Fabius; at Caesarea of Cappadocia Firmilian; in Pontus Gregory and his brother Athenodorus, both disciples of Origen, governed the churches. But at Caesarea of Palestine, Theoctistus having died, Domnus took up the priesthood. He having been taken from this life not long after, Theotecnus, who survived up to our age, was substituted in his place. So Eusebius; by which words, since he subjoins them immediately to the discourse undertaken on the peace restored to the Church, he indicates sufficiently openly that Theotecnus was raised to the chair of Caesarea in Palestine about the very time at which that peace was restored to the Church. Wherefore, since peace was not restored to the Church by Gallienus before the year 260, nor to the churches of Egypt before the year 261, it is necessary, from the testimony of Eusebius, that Theotecnus was created bishop of Caesarea about the year 260 or 261. But Eusebius, in the words just recited, also hints that Xystus still presided over the Roman Church at the same season, or at the same time, at which peace was restored by Gallienus to the churches both in Egypt and elsewhere; and Xystus, as you will find clearly proved with us in volume 2 of August in the Commentary prefatory to his Life, departed from life in the year 258, about the month of August, crowned with the palm of martyrdom; so that, when Eusebius indicates in the words recited above that at the same season at which peace was restored to the Church by Gallienus Xystus still presided over the Roman Church, and Theotecnus was promoted to the chair of Caesarea, a breadth of at least two or three years is included in the words at the same season; from which it follows that it is not certain from the words of Eusebius just recited that Theotecnus was not created bishop before about the year 260 or 261.

[33] Now if this is not certain, nothing prevents Theotecnus from being believed to have been promoted to the chair of Caesarea about the year 258, or even a little earlier, [and even if this were not supposed, these two letters would have had to be treated here by reason of a Work,] so that it is accordingly altogether uncertain about what year Dionysius wrote the aforementioned letter to Theotecnus, even granted that it was given to him when already bishop. And thus indeed you now see, as far as I think, learned reader, that the letter of Dionysius to Theotecnus, and on its occasion also the other, mentioned more than once above, which the Saint wrote to Origen, have not undeservedly been deferred by me to this Appendix. But indeed, even if the year in which both the letter to Theotecnus and the letter to Origen were written by Dionysius could be accurately defined, a legitimate reason would not on that account have been lacking to me, who have determined to set forth as under one view all the matters that in any way pertain to Origen on the occasion of Dionysius, for treating of the said two letters in this Appendix. For there is also to be mentioned here a certain Work which I find cited as written by Dionysius against Origen, and which furnishes matter for dispute as to whether it truly has Dionysius as its author. Wherefore, since this Work is to be treated here in the Appendix, according to what I promised above that I would do, there would certainly have been reason why, considering my undertaking, the two said letters should also be treated by me in it, even if I had had their epoch exactly ascertained. These things having now been set down first, I turn my discourse to the Work which I find cited as written by Dionysius against Origen.

[34] Gretser, a priest of our Society, published in print, under the name of Anastasius of Sinai, patriarch of Antioch, one hundred and fifty-four Questions on various arguments from which a passage of Dionysius against Origen is found cited. and as many Answers to them, and these were afterwards brought, with Annotations added by Gretser from time to time, into the ninth volume of the Bibliotheca of the Fathers. And in the answer to the twenty-third of these questions, in which the earthly paradise is discussed, a passage is cited from the Writings of Dionysius of Alexandria against Origen, in Greek ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ Ὠριγένους, so that, if Dionysius is rightly cited there, and that by Anastasius of Sinai, it is necessary that he composed some Work against Origen or his errors. Baronius, in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 248, number 1, writes thus: He (Heraclas, patriarch of Alexandria) having died, when Dionysius had been substituted in his place; although he had once been a disciple of the same Origen, yet, burning with ardour for the truth, taking no account of that fact, and putting all things after God, he began to attack sharply Origen himself, who had already published his writings sprinkled with many errors, and to accuse him of heresy in many things. These things the said most learned father of the Ecclesiastical Annals, who therefore most probably saw the aforementioned questions, ascribed by not a few to Anastasius of Sinai, and at the same time observed that in the twenty-third of them a passage from a Work written by Dionysius of Alexandria against Origen is cited and transcribed. For since he himself brings forward absolutely no reason for which he affirms, in the words just recited, that Origen was attacked by Dionysius, I do not see on what other reason that most learned man relying could have asserted this.

[35] For although indeed from the veneration with which Dionysius regarded Origen, However that may be, there are meanwhile many who are moved neither by the authority of Baronius nor by the passage of Dionysius cited in the said question 23 to bring themselves to believe that Dionysius composed any Work against Origen. For, as they say, Origen, as long as he lived, was most highly regarded by Dionysius, and when he had died was even praised. And this they prove partly from the Saint's letter to Origen on martyrdom, partly from his other letter, likewise mentioned here above, to Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, in which Gobarus expressly asserts that Origen was praised by Dionysius after his death. As for me, I think it certainly more probable that no Work was ever written by the Saint against Origen. But I do not think this sufficiently proved either from the veneration with which he honoured him while surviving among the living or from the praises with which he honoured him when dead. For two things are chiefly to be distinguished here, namely the person of Origen and the errors admitted by him in his writings. And the person of the man, as one whom he had once had as master, the Saint could have exceedingly venerated and regarded as long as he lived, and nevertheless have rejected his errors, and even by writings

to assail, so that it seems it cannot be concluded from the respect which Dionysius had for Origen while he was living that he did not contend in published writings against the errors of the man even while he was still alive. But suppose nevertheless that it did follow from this that Dionysius made no move whatever against the errors of Origen while the latter was still among the living; still, from the praises with which Gobarus asserts he honoured Origen in the letter written to Theotecnus, you will by no means prove that he did not do so after Origen's death.

[36] that no Work was written by him against this man is not certain, For nothing whatever prevents our believing that the Saint confuted the errors of Origen in a published writing, and at the same time praised him for the rare keenness of his intellect, his outstanding gifts of mind, and for other reasons. Thus St. Jerome in his Works (see the historical Commentary on him among us in tome 8 of September) very often extols Origen with praises, both for the excellence of his intellect and for his untiring diligence in the study of the Sacred Scriptures, and yet does not on that account omit to confute his errors, whenever the nature of the argument he is treating requires it. Thus St. Dionysius himself in his books On the Promises greatly praises Nepos, who had drawn the Arsinoites into the erroneous opinion of an earthly kingdom of Christ to last a thousand years after the resurrection, and nonetheless confutes his errors in those very books. "I praise," he says in the second of the said books On the Promises, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History book 7, chapter 24, "and love Nepos, both for his faith and for his diligence and zeal in the Scriptures; and lastly for his many songs of psalms, in which very many of the brethren still greatly delight; and I pursue the man with great honour and reverence, and most of all because he has departed from this life." With such veneration, with such a profusion, so to speak, of praises does Dionysius speak of Nepos, now dead, in that very place in which he confutes his errors, in a Work composed solely for that purpose; so that from the praises with which the Saint, on the testimony of Gobarus in Photius, honoured Origen when already dead, it cannot be concluded with certainty that no Work was composed by Dionysius against the errors of Origen after the latter had departed from among the living.

[37] "But," you will say, "if it can be concluded neither from the veneration with which Dionysius regarded Origen while still alive, [whether nevertheless the Saint wrote against Origen, on account of the credibility of the Work in which alone he is hinted to have done so,] nor from the praises with which he honoured him when already dead, that no Work was composed by him against this man, even after his death, on what ground, then, will it become more probable that this was not done by the Saint even then?" I answer: I hold it more probable that Dionysius did not write against Origen, whether still alive or already dead, both from this, that the questions praised above, from one of which alone, by reason of a passage cited in it from Dionysius against Origen, the opposite is derived, do not merit full credence; and from this, that Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History relates things from which, provided only they certainly agree with the truth, it necessarily follows that Dionysius never assailed Origen or his errors in any Work. Two things, therefore, which conduce to establishing our opinion, by which we judge it more probable that Dionysius did not write against Origen, must here be discussed somewhat more carefully. I begin with demonstrating the weak credibility of the said Questions. In Gretser, their first editor from the Augsburg Library, they have this title prefixed to them: "The Book which is called Ὁδηγὸς, that is, Guide of the Way. Questions and answers of our holy father Anastasius the Sinaite, bishop of Antioch, on various heads, proposed by various persons. He took the solutions not from himself, but from experience and from the Sacred Scriptures." Accordingly, by this title Anastasius the Sinaite is the author at once both of the Questions of which we are here discoursing and of the book which is called Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way, and was bishop of Antioch. But our Henschenius, at the twenty-first of April, in the two Anastasii, the one a presbyter, the other patriarch of Antioch, clearly proves that Anastasius the Sinaite, who is the author of the book entitled Ὁδηγὸς, and who flourished as the sixth century was growing old, is distinct from Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, who presided over the church of Antioch at about the same time; so that even from the very title which the Questions bear their credibility is not a little weakened.

[38] But it is weakened much more from the things which the praised Henschenius observes about those Questions in the two Anastasii, number 17. "In those questions also," always quite, however he says, "are cited the canons of the Quinisext or Trullan synod, enacted at Constantinople in the year DCCVII, that is, a whole century after the death of both Anastasii (namely the Sinaite and the patriarch of Antioch); there is cited also St. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who we have shown died in DCCCXXVIII, at his Life on XIII March; there are cited finally Olympiodorus, who belongs to the tenth century, St. Maximus, monk and martyr, Moschus and others, all younger (than either Anastasius). Lastly, at question 117 it is answered towards the end that the seven-hundredth year was then running since the Arians were expelled from the Holy Places and these were occupied by the Barbarians; so that it is no wonder if so many errors of the later Greeks have been stuffed into these questions and answers, which we judge ought to be wholly eliminated from the Catalogue of the treatises both of those which St. Anastasius the Sinaite and of those which Anastasius of Antioch composed." Thus far Henschenius, concluding not undeservedly, chiefly from the persons later in age than both Anastasii, namely the Sinaite and the Antiochene, who are mentioned in the aforesaid Questions, that that Work has as its author neither Anastasius the Sinaite, who died in the seventh century, nor the Antiochene, who died in the preceding one; so that, since it must be the offspring of an author not a little younger, its credibility in the narration of those things which were done before the age of both the said Anastasii is very greatly weakened.

[39] it be considered, doubtful, still remains doubtful; But if you reply that that Work, though first put together by the Anastasii, either the Antiochene or the Sinaite, was afterwards interpolated by writers of a later age, and that this is why persons later in age than both the said Anastasii are now and then mentioned in it, I answer: let it be so; not even so, however, will you have anything by which to vindicate full credibility for the said Work. For since, besides the things which Henschenius enumerates in the words just recited, it contains, in the judgment of the learned, many others besides which require an author younger than both the said Anastasii, it must surely have been quite remarkably interpolated, at least as regards those things which are later than the age of both Anastasii. Hence, further, it becomes doubtful whether it is not likewise interpolated as regards those things which are to be held as earlier than both Anastasii. Now, since this is so, granted even that the author of that Work, or of the praised 154 questions and as many answers to them, is truly Anastasius, whether the Sinaite or the Antiochene, still it cannot yet be known what in them, whether the discourse be of a matter earlier than the Anastasii or later than them, belongs to one or other Anastasius as the original author, and what, on the contrary, to a writer, or rather interpolator, of a later age; so that, in whatever way those questions are at last considered, they do not merit full and undoubted credence, and consequently, specifically, since the said passage in the twenty-third of them, cited from a Work written by Dionysius against Origen, may perhaps have been stuffed in by a writer of a later age not sufficiently acquainted with the matter, it still remains doubtful whether Dionysius ever truly drew his pen against Origen.

[40] which doubt is further increased from what Socrates writes; Moreover, this doubt is not a little increased by what Socrates records concerning the authors who first wrote against Origen. These things, since enough has now been said on the weak credibility of the aforesaid Questions, must now be discussed. Socrates, who flourished when the fifth century was well advanced, and is praised by some for judgment and accuracy, composed an Ecclesiastical History, and embraced in seven books the events from the beginnings of the empire of Constantine the Great down to the year 439, mixing in some observations here and there. In the sixth of these, chapter thirteen, he writes thus: "But since those who are led by a zeal for detraction have seduced very many, turning them away from the reading of Origen as if he were impious, I think it will not be unsuitable to discourse a little about them. Mean and obscure men, who cannot become famous by themselves, try to catch at fame by the vituperation of their betters. In this manner first laboured Methodius, bishop of Olympus, a city of Lycia. Then Eustathius, who ruled the church of Antioch for a short time. After him Apollinaris, and last of all Theophilus. This is the four-horse team of revilers, who, not going by the same road, calumniated Origen. For each broke out into accusing him for a different reason; by which each sufficiently declared that he entirely approved those things which he had not reprehended. For since each set about refuting one particular dogma singly, it is evident that each admitted as true that which he did not attack, tacitly, that is, approving the things which he did not assail. Methodius indeed, though in his books he had long and much attacked Origen, afterwards, as if singing a palinode, honours him with the highest admiration in the dialogue which he entitled Xenon." Thus Socrates, affirming many things indeed which it is not the place here to discuss, but at the same time, as regards what bears on this point, teaching most plainly that Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Lycia, was the first who drew his pen against Origen. Wherefore, since Methodius, who was crowned with martyrdom about the year 303, when Diocletian was persecuting the Church, flourished chiefly when the third century was already almost advanced to its end, and does not seem to have become famous for his writings before the year 280, it follows that, on the testimony of Socrates, no one before this time contended in writing against Origen, and consequently that Dionysius, inasmuch as he died in the year 265, composed no Work against him.

[41] "But," you will say, "Socrates was more favourably inclined towards Origen than was just, [nay, all things weighed, it appears more probable that Dionysius did not write against Origen.] so that one may not undeservedly suspect that one or another writer, even older than Methodius, who wrote against Origen, was suppressed by him in silence." I admit it: Socrates, as is manifest from his words just transcribed here, and especially from the manner expressed in them in which he speaks of Methodius, a holy Martyr, in Origen's favour, was beyond all doubt more favourably inclined than was fair towards Origen, not to say anything more about a man suspected by some even of heresy; and hence it is also partly the reason why, even considering the testimony of Socrates, I do not hold it as wholly undoubted that Dionysius did not write against Origen. There is added, which is the other reason on account of which I do not hold this as undoubted, that perhaps Socrates had not examined all the books written by Dionysius, which were great in number,

so that, even if Socrates be believed to have wished to enumerate in good faith the first authors who wrote against Origen, it is by no means certain from his testimony, transcribed above, that no Work was composed by Dionysius against Origen. Accordingly, since it cannot be certain and undoubted from the Questions praised above, as we have proved, that Dionysius wrote against Origen, while on the other hand the opposite does not emerge as altogether certain and undoubted from Socrates either, I leave the whole matter to the judgment of the studious reader, content to have said that this latter, which is derived from Socrates, appears to me by far the more probable, both on account of his authority and on account of the other things argued at number 38 and following.

CHAPTER IV.

Whether the Saint composed Scholia on the Works which are circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite.

The words by which some think that St. Anastasius the Sinaite, That there are several ancient authors who affirm that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, composed scholia on the books usually circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, most of those who judge that the said books are to be attributed to the Areopagite hold as one of the chief foundations of their opinion. Among the authors, however, whom they contend affirm this, the chief are St. Anastasius, surnamed the Sinaite, and St. Maximus the martyr. To these may be added Nicetas Choniates and John Cyparissiotes, who was surnamed the Wise. Of these four, and of all others who are said to affirm that Dionysius wrote scholia on the Works of the Areopagite, the oldest is St. Anastasius the Sinaite. He flourished as the sixth century was growing old, and departed from among the living in the following century. Among the various Works which he composed, he put together a book which he entitled Ὁδηγὸν, that is, Guide of the Way. It is extant, brought into the ninth tome of the Library of the Fathers of the Lyons edition. In chapter 22 of it Anastasius records these things: "The same divine and apostolic Dionysius" (namely the Areopagite) "names the supernal Powers many substances. But the Great Dionysius of Alexandria, made bishop from among the number of the rhetors, in the Scholia which he wrote on Dionysius of the same name as himself, has this: 'External philosophy is accustomed to call every invisible nature unbegotten, and similarly to call hypostases substances. After whose manner St. Dionysius has spoken in these places,' using, that is, these words improperly."

[43] St. Maximus the martyr, Nicetas Choniates St. Maximus, who flourished in the seventh century, composed Scholia on the books of the Celestial Hierarchy usually circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite; and in the Scholia on chapter 5 of the Celestial Hierarchy he has this: "Why, moreover, since the Church teaches that all the holy angels are of one substance, does St. Dionysius" (the Areopagite, that is) "name many powers? That Great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria and orator, in the Scholia put together by him on the blessed Dionysius of the same name as himself, notes that external philosophy is accustomed to call every invisible nature unbegotten, as also to call supposita essences; and hence he says that expressions of this kind were used by holy Dionysius loosely." Nicetas Choniates flourished about the year 1200, and John Cyparissiotes, surnamed the Wise, in the twelfth or thirteenth century, so that both are too remote from the age of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to be able to create sure credence for the things which they seem to relate about him. Since, nevertheless, their testimony will be of use here too, I likewise transcribe here the words in which each is expressed. In Nicetas Choniates, book 2 of the Thesaurus, chapter 15, are these: "Dionysius of Alexandria also, that rhetor, in the Scholia which he published on the Areopagite of the same name as himself, says: that among external or profane philosophers 'unbegotten' signifies every nature which does not fall under sight; further, that among the same, 'essences' is also used for 'hypostases.'"

[44] But in John Cyparissiotes, decade 1, [and John Cyparissiotes are thought to praise Scholia written by Dionysius on the Areopagite.] chapter 1, these things are read: "Dionysius" (the Areopagite, that is) "in the letter to Titus the bishop speaks thus: 'For the rest, this is to be noted, that the tradition of the theologians is twofold, one secret and mystical, the other philosophical and demonstrative: the former indeed symbolic and pertaining to the mysteries, the latter open and more manifest. And the secret or mystical is implicated and connected with the symbol; the philosophical and demonstrative indeed creates faith, and binds fast the truth of the things said; but the secret and mystical affects, and establishes in God ταῖς ἀδιδάκτοις μυσταγωγίαις.' This saying St. Maximus and Dionysius of Alexandria have annotated. Maximus etc. But Dionysius of Alexandria says: 'Philosophical and demonstrative theology creates faith and binds fast the truth, that is, it seals as with a kind of seal the truth of the things said, and ties it together as with a bond, and brings it about that those who hear believe. But the other part of theology, which is symbolic, joins to God, through the things which are done, by a certain disposition and formation of the thing itself, which indeed he called ἀδιδάκτους μυσταγωγίας.'" Thus far John Cyparissiotes, who, although he does not openly name Scholia written by Dionysius, yet seems to designate them, since no other Work written by Dionysius on the Areopagite is mentioned by anyone.

[45] And so you now have, learned reader, the testimonies of four ancient writers, Many, however, deny these to the Saint; but not all by the same way. from which most of those who hold the books usually circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite as genuine Works of his think it is most certainly established that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote scholia on those books of the Areopagite. Let us now discuss whether this opinion of theirs ought to be held as certain and undoubted. Absolutely all who deny the aforementioned books to Dionysius the Areopagite deny that scholia on them were written by Dionysius of Alexandria. Nay, there are also some who reject these as falsely foisted on Dionysius of Alexandria, although meanwhile they stubbornly contend that the Works which are marked with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are to be ascribed to him as their genuine author. Among these one is Halloix, priest of the Society of Jesus, in his Questions on the life and Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. But these do not all enter upon one and the same way by which to deny scholia of this kind to Dionysius of Alexandria. For some affirm that the Dionysius who is asserted by Anastasius the Sinaite and the others already mentioned to have composed scholia on the Dionysius of the same name as himself is to be taken not for St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, but for a certain ancient rhetor or orator who is different from our Saint; and thus that Anastasius the Sinaite, who also caused Maximus to go astray, departs from the truth when he ascribes the aforesaid scholia to St. Dionysius of Alexandria, or at any rate that the Work entitled Guide of the Way has been falsely foisted on Anastasius.

[46] Others, on the contrary, contend that scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on the Dionysius of the same name as himself, [For others admit Scholia written by Dionysius on one of the same name as himself;] but by this one they understand not Dionysius the Areopagite but some other of the same name, perhaps Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, most famous also for his writings in the second century of the Christian era. Of all who contend this latter view, the praised Halloix seems to be the standard-bearer. He contends that the Works which bear the name of Dionysius the Areopagite were never cited by any holy Father before the conference held at Constantinople in the year 533 between the Orthodox and the Severians, still less illustrated with scholia or Commentaries; and hence it is that he denies the aforementioned Scholia to Dionysius of Alexandria. And in the second of the Questions mentioned above, among the arguments of the opposing party, he answers thus to the testimony of St. Maximus (for that which we have likewise transcribed here from St. Anastasius the Sinaite he does not touch): "But as for its being also said that St. Dionysius of Alexandria, disciple of Origen, wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, and its being proved by the authority of St. Maximus, the proof is vain. For St. Maximus does not say that he wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, but on the Dionysius of the same name as himself. Such, however, there were many. For there was both Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, and Dionysius, the Roman Pope, both distinguished writers, and perhaps some others, so that it cannot be said for certain that St. Maximus is speaking of the Areopagite; and I, on the contrary, can prove most plainly from the same St. Maximus that he is writing there of another than the Areopagite."

[47] but by this one not Dionysius the Areopagite, So Halloix prefaces; and in order actually to prove what he asserts he can prove most plainly, after transcribing in Greek and Latin the words of St. Maximus which we recited at number 43, he presently subjoins: "Why St. Maximus in these words does not seem to understand St. Dionysius the Areopagite by 'blessed Dionysius of the same name as himself', these are the chief reasons. First: if he had understood the Areopagite, he would rather, as the custom of writers has it, have spoken thus" (see the words of St. Maximus transcribed here at number 43): "'In the Notes which he wrote on this very Dionysius.' For he was then treating of Dionysius the Areopagite. Second: because St. Maximus in his Apology for the writings of the Areopagite, or in the Preface to his Scholia on Dionysius, when he answers that objection of the adversaries, that neither Eusebius Pamphili nor Origen made mention of the writings of Dionysius, would without doubt, if he had known that Dionysius of Alexandria, the contemporary of Origen and earlier than Eusebius, had composed Scholia on the Areopagite, by no means have kept silent about it, but would have said: 'Although Origen and Eusebius do not mention the Areopagite, yet St. Dionysius of Alexandria, who surpasses Eusebius by almost a century and lived in the age of Origen, not only mentions him, but even composed Scholia on him.' By which answer he would beyond doubt have shut the mouths of all opponents. But he said nothing of the kind; rather he admitted that neither Origen nor Eusebius nor any of the ancient Fathers had made mention of the books of the Areopagite; and he brought forward only this by way of excuse, that Origen scarcely mentions four authors, while Eusebius passed over not only the Areopagite, who was bishop of Athens, but also Hymenaeus and Narcissus, writers of his own region, who were priests at Jerusalem."

[48] they contend that some other Dionysius is designated. Thus far the praised Halloix, bringing forward these two different answers in order to show that nothing whatever is to be had from the words of Maximus recited above for vindicating the Scholia, already so often mentioned, to Dionysius of Alexandria. The latter of these, as it indeed appears to me, invincibly proves that St. Maximus did not hold it as undoubted that Scholia had been composed by Dionysius of Alexandria on Dionysius the Areopagite, and consequently also that the Areopagite is not designated by Maximus as the one on whom these were written by our Saint. As regards the first, however, it does not prove with equal certainty what Halloix wants. For although Maximus, or rather Anastasius the Sinaite, from whom Maximus seems to have transcribed his words recited above, would seem likely to have spoken more distinctly and accurately, in the manner which Halloix states at the preceding number, in order to indicate Dionysius the Areopagite, it can nevertheless happen that Anastasius, not pursuing that utmost accuracy in speaking, nevertheless wished to designate Dionysius the Areopagite in the manner in which he spoke; although meanwhile by the Dionysius on whose books he affirms that Dionysius of Alexandria wrote Scholia, he perhaps understands not the Areopagite but another, as I shall show in the present chapter is not unlike the truth. Before

I do so, however, it pleases me to discuss on what ground others, who contend that by the words recited above no other Dionysius than the Areopagite is most certainly designated by Anastasius the Sinaite and by Maximus following him, are not moved by the authority of Anastasius and Maximus to affirm Scholia composed by Dionysius of Alexandria on the Areopagite.

[49] Nicolas le Nourry, presbyter and monk of the Order of St. Benedict, in the Apparatus to the Great Library of the ancient Fathers, column 174, [Others, on the contrary, hold that the Scholia on the Areopagite were written not by the Saint but by a rhetor of the same name as he;] in the tenth Dissertation, on the Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, affirms that it seems certain that the Scholia which Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus mention in the words recited above are not the offspring of Dionysius of Alexandria; and he proves it thus: "For Eusebius," he says, "and Jerome, who most diligently enumerated the Works of this patriarch of Alexandria" (St. Dionysius), "made no mention whatever of these Scholia. What of the fact that Anastasius" (the Sinaite, namely) "and after him Maximus say that this Dionysius" (who put together the said Scholia) "was a bishop from the number of the rhetors: 'But the Great Dionysius,'" these are the words of Anastasius, "'made bishop from the number of the rhetors, in the Scholia' etc. And Maximus: ἀπὸ ῥητόρων etc. But Dionysius, before he was taken up as bishop of Alexandria, did not profess Rhetoric, but held catecheses among the Christian people. What else, then, would you gather from this than that these Scholia were composed by some rhetor named Dionysius, whom Anastasius and Maximus falsely supposed to be the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nor indeed did Anastasius err in this alone; for, to say nothing of the rest, in the same Work, which is entitled Guide of the Way, chapter 7, he affirms that Augustine shed his blood for Christ: 'Away,' he says, 'with Augustine, who with his own blood in his writings sealed the two natures in Christ.'" Thus the praised le Nourry, indicating that it is to be concluded, chiefly from the title of Rhetor or Orator with which Dionysius, the compiler of the Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, is distinguished by Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus, that that Scholiast, or he who composed Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, was not Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, but a professor of the Oratorical art called by the name of Dionysius, and that Anastasius and Maximus erred in adorning him with the title of bishop of Alexandria.

[50] But I do not see how this can be concluded from the title of Rhetor which is attributed to Dionysius the compiler of the Scholia. [but this is by no means proved from the title of rhetor which is joined to Dionysius the author of the Scholia,] For Rhetor is a Greek word which, among other things, is found taken by the Greeks now and then to signify either an interpreter of Sacred Scripture or even a sacred preacher. "The office of the Rhetor," says Codinus, on the officials of the palace of Constantinople and on the offices of the great church, chapter 1, fourth Pentad, number 22, "is to interpret the Scriptures." In Stephen Gerlach, in a letter to Crusius published by David Chytraeus in the book On the State of the Eastern Churches, John Zygomalas is styled Rhetor of the great church of Constantinople, that is, most probably, either a sacred preacher or an interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures. Theodore Balsamon, in the first answer or meditation on the questions proposed to him, calls St. Paul the Apostle, in the same sense, Rhetor of the holy Churches of God; so that Anastasius and Maximus too could in the same sense have called Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a Rhetor; namely because, when, not yet created bishop, he was placed in charge of the celebrated catechetical school of Alexandria, he also acted at Alexandria as a preacher of the divine word and an interpreter of the Sacred Scriptures, in order diligently to fulfil the office enjoined on him. There is no reason, then, why anyone should think, from the fact that Dionysius, the compiler of the Scholia on the Areopagite, is called Rhetor or Orator by Anastasius and Maximus, that that Scholiast is to be distinguished from Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and that he is wrongly adorned with this title of dignity by Anastasius and Maximus. Moreover, Dionysius, before he was placed in charge of the celebrated catechetical school at Alexandria, had professed the art of rhetoric, as I have taught in the Commentary, and hence he could be said by Anastasius and Maximus to have been made bishop of Alexandria from a rhetor, not indeed immediately, but by way of the intermediate prefecture of the catechetical school.

[51] is by no means proved. "But," you will say, "Nicetas Choniates and John Cyparissiotes (see the words of each of these writers transcribed here above) nowhere call the Dionysius whom they hint wrote Scholia or Annotations on the Dionysius of the same name as himself bishop or patriarch of Alexandria, so that they distinguish Dionysius, the scholiast of Dionysius the Areopagite, from our Saint, the bishop of Alexandria." "John Cyparissiotes, decade 1, chapter 1" (says Turrianus, in tome 3 of the Library of the Fathers of the Lyons edition, in the Notes on St. Dionysius of Alexandria) "adduces words" (see these transcribed here at number 44) "of Dionysius of Alexandria from the Annotations on Dionysius the Areopagite; but this Dionysius who wrote Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite is called by Nicetas Choniates" (see his words likewise already transcribed here at number 43), "book 2 of the Thesaurus, chapter 15, a rhetor, and he will perhaps be the same author in both" (Nicetas Choniates and John Cyparissiotes), "and later than this one of ours" (Dionysius of Alexandria). But I answer: it suffices that the scholiast of Dionysius the Areopagite is named Dionysius of Alexandria by these two writers. For on account of the celebrity of our Saint's name, no other Dionysius than he himself is usually understood by "Dionysius of Alexandria," even without the added title of bishop or patriarch, so that "Dionysius of Alexandria," even with nothing added, in a manner by antonomasia signifies our Saint; and consequently the two praised authors understand by the Dionysius whom they make the scholiast of Dionysius the Areopagite no other Dionysius than ours. Nor does it stand in the way that Nicetas names Dionysius, the scholiast of the Areopagite, a rhetor. For he probably does so because he observed him distinguished with this title by Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus. Moreover, what Choniates records of Dionysius, the scholiast of the Areopagite, he copied for the most part from Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus, so that by Dionysius the scholiast he understands no other than the Dionysius they themselves understood, the bishop of Alexandria.

[52] It cannot therefore be concluded with certainty from the title of rhetor or orator which is joined to Dionysius, Nor is it proved any better from the errors of which Anastasius is accused, the compiler of the Scholia on the one of the same name as himself, by St. Anastasius the Sinaite, St. Maximus and Nicetas, that that scholiast called Dionysius is distinct from our St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. Nor can anything be had to prove it from the errors of which Anastasius is accused by Nicolas le Nourry, praised above. For although Anastasius perhaps strayed from the truth in attributing the title of bishop to the Dionysius of Alexandria who wrote Scholia on the one of the same name as himself, this is not to be asserted of a holy man without solid reason; and no reason of this kind is brought forward on account of which I should with certainty accuse Anastasius of error here. For although Anastasius, as the praised le Nourry teaches in the words recited at number 49, seems to affirm in his book entitled Guide of the Way that St. Augustine shed his blood for Christ, and thus to commit, as it appears, a manifest error, it does not follow from this that he likewise errs when he calls bishop the Dionysius of Alexandria whom he makes the scholiast of the one of the same name as himself. Besides, these words of Anastasius, "Augustine, who with his own blood in his writings sealed the two natures in Christ," by which Anastasius seemed to the praised le Nourry to affirm that Augustine shed his blood for Christ, can perhaps be so explained as to have a sense not wholly foreign to the truth. As for the rest, however, in which le Nourry, already praised more than once, indicates in the words recited above that Anastasius strays from the truth, this is asserted only in general, and I have no mind to investigate more laboriously whether it agrees with the exact truth. Suppose, however, that Anastasius strays from the truth even many times; not even so will you prove anything. For since there is no doubt that at the same time he far more often does not stray from the truth, it is rather to be thought that he does not stray than that he strays from the truth when he adorns Dionysius, the scholiast of the one of the same name as himself, with the title of bishop of Alexandria in the Work entitled Ὁδηγὸς.

[53] Nevertheless, in order to make it more likely that Dionysius, the scholiast of the one of the same name as himself, [nor from the things narrated in the Work entitled Guide of the Way, which is certainly Anastasius's,] is wrongly called bishop of Alexandria in the Work whose title is Ὁδηγὸς, there are also some who contend that that Work was falsely foisted on Anastasius, or at any rate was remarkably interpolated. And to prove this they say that not a few events are narrated in it which are later than the age of Anastasius. But I am by no means moved by the events later, as they suppose, than the age of Anastasius, which are narrated in that Work, to judge it either falsely foisted on Anastasius or remarkably interpolated. For that that Work is the genuine offspring of Anastasius becomes clear from various places in it; while the events later than the age of Anastasius which have been observed in it by some vanish altogether in view of the distinction which must be made between Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, and Anastasius the presbyter and monk, and of the time at which the latter departed from among the living. I set about proving each of these assertions. I begin with the first. The title of the book or Work of which we are here treating is, in the manuscript codex, as Gretser, who first edited it from this, testifies, of this kind: Ἀρχὴ Βιβλίου τοῦ ὁσίου Ἀναστασίου μοναχοῦ τοῦ Σινὰ ὄρους. The beginning of the book of St. Anastasius, monk of Sinai, or of Mount Sinai. And in chapter four this title is read: "A Work of Anastasius, the least presbyter of the holy mount Sinai, on the faith and the economy of Christ the Son of God, written to the holy Catholic Church at Babylon, at the request of our Brethren in it who are zealous for Christ and orthodox." And in chapter 10 he brings forward his disputation held with heretics at Alexandria, where he also affirms that he, Anastasius, monk of the holy mount Sinai, wrote a profession of faith; and thus elsewhere he names himself the least monk. Since, therefore, as is clear from what has already been said, the author of the book entitled Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way in the course of the Work calls himself either Anastasius the least presbyter of the holy mount Sinai, or Anastasius monk of the holy mount Sinai, or the least monk, and all these designations suit very well Anastasius, and that Anastasius the Sinaite who is placed in the title of the Work, there seems no doubt that the said Work truly has Anastasius the Sinaite as its author, so that it is wrongly said to have been falsely foisted on him.

[54] inasmuch as events which, as they contend, are later in age Let us now examine the events just mentioned, on account of which some deny the book entitled Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way to Anastasius. Many things, as I have already said, they say are mentioned in it which are later than the age of Anastasius, and in the first place indeed that mention is made of St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, as already dead, who nevertheless did not depart from among the living before Anastasius was already dead. I admit that in the said book mention occurs of St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, as already dead. For its author in chapter 10 writes thus: "It will not be out of place for the studious likewise to observe this in this place. They used to relate

to us, the Catholics who live at Alexandria, that after the times of the blessed Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, there was here an Augustal prefect who was a Severian," that is, a follower of the sect of the Severians, "who for a fairly long time kept and maintained with him fourteen calligraphers or copyists of the same opinion, to whom he gave the task of falsifying and corrupting the books of the Fathers, especially of St. Cyril." For the truth of these words, as will be evident to one who considers them, it is required that at the time when they were written St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, had been taken from among the living, and that indeed long before. But I answer that St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, was in fact taken from among the living long before Anastasius, who is the author of the book of which we are here discoursing, and that the contrary is maintained only by those who do not think that Anastasius the Sinaite is to be distinguished from Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, who died in the year 599.

[55] are not later than Anastasius; But these, as also those who make Anastasius the Sinaite the same as the other Anastasius who succeeded the Anastasius of Antioch just mentioned in the patriarchate of Antioch with no one between, and who died in the year 610, are vehemently deluded. For Anastasius who is called the Sinaite, and who is the author of the book entitled Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way, was neither bishop nor patriarch, but only a presbyter, and consequently is distinct from both Anastasii of Antioch here mentioned, the elder as well as the younger. Wherefore, since Anastasius the Sinaite is different from both these Anastasii of Antioch, nothing at all prevents our believing that St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, who, as our Sollerius teaches in the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 359, met his last day in the year 604, was taken from among the living long before him. Now, since this is so, it cannot legitimately be inferred from the fact that in the Work whose title is Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way mention occurs of St. Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria, as long since dead, that that Work was falsely foisted on Anastasius the Sinaite; but on the contrary it is rather to be inferred from it that he prolonged his life so long that he could speak of Eulogius as long since snatched from among the living. Hence, further, since Eulogius died in the year 604, and the long time by which, according to what has been said, Anastasius must have survived him can comprise not fewer than about twenty years, you will rightly conclude that Anastasius the Sinaite survived among the living, if not longer, at any rate until about the year 625, so that when he speaks of Eulogius as long since dead, he is by no means speaking of a matter later than his own age. For brevity's sake I do not demonstrate the same, though it would not be difficult, of some other things mentioned by Anastasius, on account of which, as being later than Anastasius, as they think, and yet narrated by him in the book whose title is Ὁδηγὸς, some have believed that this Work was falsely foisted on him. And so indeed the difficulties on account of which the book whose title is Ὁδηγὸς might be denied to Anastasius have now been removed.

[56] "But," you will say, "let that book whose title is Ὁδηγὸς be held for the time being as the genuine offspring of Anastasius the Sinaite; [and although the Work whose title is Guide of the Way has been variously interpolated, on the testimony of Allatius,] you will not yet prove from this that Dionysius, the scholiast of the one of the same name as himself, is rightly called in it bishop of Alexandria, or that Scholia on the one of the same name as himself were composed by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. For Leo Allatius, in the Syntagma on the Engastrimythus, page 528, shows that that book, which is entitled Ὁδηγὸς or Guide of the Way, has been variously interpolated, so that one could suspect that the aforementioned testimony or assertion about the Scholia written by Dionysius on the one of the same name as himself did not proceed from Anastasius the Sinaite, but was intruded into his text by the more recent hand of an interpolator." But I answer that the book whose title is Ὁδηγὸς either has not been interpolated in the place in which it presents the aforesaid testimony about the Scholia written by Dionysius, or, if it has been interpolated there, it seems necessary that this was done by the interpolator's bringing into the aforesaid book of Anastasius that very text which we transcribed here above from the Scholia of St. Maximus on Dionysius the Areopagite. I show the matter thus: St. Anastasius the Sinaite departed from among the living between about the year 630 and 640, as now seems to not a few of the learned; and St. Maximus outlived him by only about twenty-five years. Now, since the words recited at number 43, in which St. Maximus testifies that Scholia were prepared by Dionysius on the one of the same name as himself, agree exactly with the words transcribed here at number 42, in which St. Anastasius the Sinaite testifies that very thing, St. Maximus seems to have copied his from St. Anastasius, the younger, that is, from the elder.

[57] But if this is so, since only a short space of time intervened between St. Maximus and St. Anastasius the Sinaite, nothing, however, is had from this and the latter's Work entitled Guide of the Way was probably not interpolated as soon as it had been brought to light, this Work certainly cannot be said, at least in that place in which it mentions the Scholia written by Dionysius of Alexandria on the one of the same name as himself, to be interpolated even now. But if you would have it that St. Maximus, inasmuch as he does not name St. Anastasius the Sinaite, did not draw from him his words in which he testifies to Scholia written by Dionysius of Alexandria on the one of the same name as himself, but brought them forward out of his own mind in order to illustrate the sayings of Dionysius the Areopagite, then indeed, this being posited, it cannot be held as certain that the words recited above, by which in the book whose title is Ὁδηγὸς Dionysius is indicated to have written Scholia on the one of the same name as himself, were not brought from St. Maximus's Scholia on the Areopagite into the said Work of Anastasius which is entitled Ὁδηγὸς by the more recent hand of an interpolator after the age of St. Maximus. But not even so will it be possible to prove that Scholia were not put together by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, on the one of the same name as himself. For suppose that Anastasius the Sinaite (which, however, you will never easily prove) nowhere made even a word of mention of Scholia written by Dionysius on the one of the same name as himself; it will nevertheless still remain certain on the testimony of St. Maximus that Scholia were composed by the Saint on the Dionysius of the same name as himself.

[58] just as nothing is had from the silence of Eusebius and Jerome Nor is there any reason why you should here oppose, as the praised le Nourry does in the words recited at number 49, the silence of Eusebius and Jerome about Scholia written by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, on the one of the same name as himself. For both Eusebius and Jerome passed over in silence several other Works of Dionysius as well; and lest you think this said by me without ground, I demonstrate the matter by examples. St. Dionysius, having heard of the accusation of the Pentapolitans against him before Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, immediately sent him a letter for the purpose of clearing himself, which, as I proved in the Commentary, is most certainly to be distinguished from his four books of Refutation and Apology; yet Eusebius nowhere mentions this letter; which is also to be said, of Jerome as well as Eusebius, with regard to the letter which we taught in the chapter of this Appendix immediately preceding that Dionysius sent to Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea. To Stephen, the Roman Pontiff, St. Dionysius, on the testimony of Eusebius, book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 2, wrote the first of the letters which he composed on baptism, and in another quite remarkable letter, of which Eusebius presents various Fragments, he excellently defended his reputation, which had been torn by Germanus, a certain Egyptian bishop; yet neither is found mentioned by Jerome in the Catalogue of the Works of Dionysius. Moreover, Eusebius himself indicates plainly enough that not all the Works of Dionysius were enumerated by him, writing thus in book 7, chapter 26: "But there are also many other letters of his" (St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria) "with us, and longer books written in epistolary form and style; of which kind are those books On Nature dedicated to the boy Timothy. Likewise the book On Temptations, which he also inscribed to Euphranor."

[59] for denying the Scholia to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. Since, then, as is clear from what has already been said, Eusebius and Jerome do not enumerate all the Works of Dionysius, it cannot be inferred from their silence about the Scholia which Dionysius of Alexandria wrote on the one of the same name as himself that Scholia were not truly composed by Dionysius of Alexandria on the one of the same name as himself. Accordingly, as is plain from all that we have thus far discoursed, it cannot be proved that Anastasius the Sinaite strays from the truth when he affirms Scholia written by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, on the one of the same name as himself; and hence chiefly it is that I, lest I rashly accuse him of error, would not easily dare to assent to those who, in order not to admit that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria on the Areopagite, attribute their writing not to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, but to a certain rhetor of Alexandria of the same name, and contend that he is wrongly distinguished by Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus with the title of bishop of Alexandria. Fabricius indeed, in the Greek Library, book 5, chapter 1, number 6, on the Pseudo-Areopagite, brings forward things from which, if they certainly agreed with the truth, it would follow that very probably no Scholia were composed by Dionysius on the one of the same name as himself. But since I have not hitherto found that they certainly agree with the truth, I leave this matter to be discussed at the IX day of this month on Dionysius the Areopagite, and meanwhile I think it is to be held as more probable that the Saint wrote Scholia on the one of the same name as himself.

[60] Nor does it follow from this, however, that I would have him to have put together Annotations or Scholia on the books usually circulated under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite. Not, however, on that account these on the Areopagite, For standing in the way of this following from it is the opinion of others who, although they admit that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote Scholia or Annotations on some Dionysius of the same name as himself, yet constantly deny that this was done by him on Dionysius the Areopagite. And indeed they are not without a foundation for doing so. For neither Anastasius the Sinaite nor Maximus expresses Dionysius the Areopagite by name; and the words in which they affirm that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote Scholia on the one of the same name as himself are not necessarily to be taken (see what we have discoursed above) so as to designate those Scholia as written on Dionysius the Areopagite. Certainly St. Maximus, who seems merely to have copied the words of St. Anastasius the Sinaite recited at number 42, did not understand Dionysius the Areopagite by the Dionysius of the same name as the Alexandrian on whom he indicates Scholia were written by the latter. For Maximus, as appears manifestly from what we have taught above, did not think that Dionysius, whom nevertheless in the words recited above he expressly names bishop of Alexandria, wrote Scholia or Annotations on Dionysius the Areopagite; and he would surely seem likely to have held otherwise if he had understood Dionysius the Areopagite by the Dionysius on whom Anastasius reports Scholia were written by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria.

[61] Hence I, adhering to this opinion of St. Maximus, understand by the Dionysius of the same name as the Alexandrian, but on another of the same name, on whom the latter wrote Scholia, a Dionysius distinct from the Areopagite. "But," you will say, "Nicetas Choniates and John Cyparissiotes, praised more than once above, the Dionysius on whom

they indicate in the words at numbers 43 and 44 that Scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria, openly name the Areopagite. Moreover, if the Areopagite cannot be understood by the namesake on whom Dionysius composed Scholia, another Dionysius must be assigned on whom these were composed; and consequently, since this seems impossible to do, it appears that it must be concluded, both from this and from the fact that Nicetas and Cyparissiotes call the Dionysius on whom the Alexandrian wrote Scholia the Areopagite, that the Scholia were composed by Dionysius on no other than the Areopagite." I answer that each of these difficulties can be dissolved with easy effort. And the latter indeed Halloix, already praised before, dissolves in this manner in the place cited above. "I answer," he says, "that he who is called blessed and holy Dionysius by St. Maximus, and who was illustrated with Scholia by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, seems to be St. Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, an illustrious writer of the second century, who, as Eusebius and Jerome testify, 'was of such eloquence and industry that he instructed by letters not only the peoples of his own city and province, but also those of other cities and provinces.' For these are the very words of St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Writers, chapter 20, where he also enumerates his writings."

[62] were written perhaps on Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians. So Halloix, subjoining after some things interposed: "And there was a very great reason why Dionysius of Alexandria should write Scholia on St. Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, his namesake. For heretics had corrupted his Writings and were abusing them for their own errors. And lest I seem to say this without ground, see the very words of the same Dionysius of Corinth complaining of this, in Eusebius, book 4 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22. Wherefore the Alexandrian, in order partly to explain him and partly to defend him (for his authority was held in the highest esteem), found it necessary to compose Scholia on him." Since, then, as is understood from these words of Halloix, it is not wholly unlike the truth that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, prepared Scholia on Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a Dionysius of the same name as the Alexandrian and distinct from the Areopagite can certainly be assigned whose Works were illustrated with Annotations or Scholia by St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. And so indeed vanishes the latter difficulty, on account of which it could be contended that the Scholia, if any were written by our Saint on his namesake, were composed on the Areopagite. As regards the first, however, drawn from Choniates and John Cyparissiotes, I answer that these openly make the Dionysius on whom they hint that scholia were written by Dionysius of Alexandria the Areopagite for this reason, that they wrongly interpreted as referring to the Areopagite Anastasius the Sinaite and Maximus, who teach that Scholia were written by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, not on the Areopagite, but only on his namesake. Accordingly, if Dionysius wrote any Scholia on his namesake, as appears more probable, by this namesake is to be understood not the Areopagite but another Dionysius, perhaps the bishop of the Corinthians.

CHAPTER V.

Of the two letters to Paul of Samosata published under the name of Dionysius, and of the two arguments by which some contend that these are not by Dionysius.

Two letters to Paul of Samosata, published under the name of Dionysius. St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, as some contend, wrote at least three letters to Paul of Samosata; in the first of which he asked Paul to set out to him openly what his doctrine was; in the second he confuted this doctrine set out to him by Paul in a letter; and in the third, finally, he answered ten objections or questions of Paul against the orthodox doctrine. The two latter of these letters, which, as they contend, are to be ascribed to the Saint, together with the ten objections or questions of Paul of Samosata proposed to Dionysius, were found at the beginning of the century just past, and, first printed at Rome in the year 1608, were afterwards brought into the first tome of Labbe's Councils and into the Library of the Fathers, both that printed at Paris and afterwards at Cologne, and that printed at Lyons, into the third tome of the latter. As regards the first of the three said letters, in which the Saint asked Paul to set out to him what his doctrine was, it is known to be extant nowhere. Since, however, the second of the three aforesaid letters has at its beginning, "We have written back to what you wrote before, in order to draw you out to say openly what you wish to say," there appears to be no doubt that the Saint wrote also the first of the three mentioned letters to Paul of Samosata, who had tried to conceal his impious doctrine, or at any rate had not set it out clearly enough; there appears, I say, to be no doubt of this, provided only the two latter of the three aforesaid letters, inserted under the name of Dionysius in tome 1 of Labbe's Councils and in the Library of the Fathers, truly have Dionysius as their author.

[64] But although these two letters are more probably to be attributed to the Saint, [These, on account of the doctrine which they attribute to the Samosatene, and which with the assertions of the ancients] there are nevertheless not a few learned men who deny them to him. The standard-bearer of all these is Valesius, in his Annotations on chapter 27 of the seventh book of the Ecclesiastical History, whom Elias du Pin afterwards followed in his new Library of Writers, and very many others besides. Whether one should assent to these, or to Tillemont and many others who maintain the contrary, I inquire in the present chapter, or rather, to speak out more openly what I have in mind, I show that that matter, as not certain enough on every side, is to be left undecided. I make a beginning with the arguments which make for denying the said letters to Dionysius. Remi Ceillier, a Benedictine, who embraced the opinion of Valesius concerning the said two letters, in the third tome of the general History of Ecclesiastical Writers, page 277, reasons in this manner, his French words being rendered by me into Latin: "Nay, the author" (namely of the two letters of which we are treating) "does not even seem to have understood well enough the subject he treats. For he reproaches Paul of Samosata for admitting in Jesus Christ two hypostases, two persons, two Christs and two sons, of whom one would be the son of God by nature and eternal, the other the son of David born in time. But Paul is nowhere found to have taught these errors. The Council of Antioch gathered against him, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, Theodoret and Philastrius bring forward nothing similar against him by way of accusation. On the contrary, as the ancient writers testify, he taught that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are but one single Person; that the Word and the Holy Spirit are in the Father, but in the manner in which reason is in man, without any real and personal existence; so that according to him there is truly neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit, but only God.

[65] "Hence he said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, taking away by this word the property and distinction of the persons. cannot, he thinks, be reconciled, Ceillier denies to the Saint: It appears, therefore, more likely that the author of that letter" (he means the former of the two letters to the Samosatene published under the name of Dionysius) "confused the heresy of Nestorius, who admitted two persons in Jesus Christ, with the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who did not even grant the Word a real and personal existence." Thus far the praised Ceillier, meaning, namely, that since Paul of Samosata, according to the testimonies of the ancient writers, taught that the Son of God or the Word was without proper subsistence, or ἀνυπόστατον, it is wrongly indicated in the aforementioned letter that two hypostases in Christ, one of the Word, the other of the human nature, were admitted by Paul of Samosata, and consequently that this letter was not composed by Dionysius, inasmuch as he had understood Paul's errors better. And indeed, if Paul of Samosata did in fact teach that the Word of God is without subsistence, or ἀνυπόστατον, and no reason can be assigned by which two hypostases in Christ could have been admitted by him while this dogma stood, it will surely be, as some think, no slight argument that the aforesaid letter, in which two hypostases in Christ are indicated as admitted by Paul, does not have Dionysius as its author. I think it worth while, therefore, to discuss this somewhat more carefully. John Garnier, priest of the Society of Jesus, in the Marius Mercator which he edited illustrated with Notes and Dissertations, in the first Dissertation, on the heresy and books of Nestorius, page 308, writes thus: "It is an old opinion, drawn from long-distant times right down to our age, that the Samosatene abolished the Trinity of divine Persons and called the one Father by the name of God, to whom, however, he attributed a coeternal Word, but only uttered, and ἀνυπόστατον, and like our own."

[66] but, having recited the testimonies of more ancient writers So the praised Garnier, who, about to test the old opinion which he mentions in these words, presently prefaces this: "Neither the origin nor the truth of so widespread an opinion is altogether evident. When I investigated who first of all attributed this to Paul, no one of the Latins older than Philastrius, no one of the Greeks older than Epiphanius occurred to me, at least who disclosed his mind in express words, although not even these two themselves speak very clearly"; and then he copies out the words of Philastrius and Epiphanius, who both flourished in the fourth century, bearing on his purpose. Those of Philastrius are these: "There was a certain Paul of Samosata after these in Syria, who denied that the Word of God, that is, Christ God the Son of God, was substantive and personal and everlasting with the Father; but he said he was uttered, that is, like a kind of air; nor did he teach that the living person of the Son is to be believed everlasting with the everlasting Father." And those of Epiphanius these: "This is the opinion of Paul" (namely of Samosata): "that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God; that the Word of God and his Spirit are perpetually in God, just as we perceive a man's own word to be in his heart; that the Son of God has no subsistence by himself, but subsists in God; moreover, that the Word of God, having come down to earth, dwelt in Jesus, who was a mere man. Thus, he says, God is one; and neither is the father the Father, nor the son the Son, nor the holy spirit the Holy Spirit; but rather God is one, the Father, and his Son is in him, as speech is in a man." Thus speak Philastrius, whose Works are extant inserted in the fourth tome of the Library of the Fathers of the Lyons edition, and Epiphanius in the sixty-fifth heresy; who, although, as Garnier says, they do not speak very clearly, yet indicate openly enough that according to the opinion of Paul of Samosata the Word of God is only uttered, and without substance, or ἀνυπόστατον.

[67] on the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, Further, after reciting the two testimonies of Philastrius and Epiphanius on the doctrine of Paul of Samosata concerning the second Person of the Holy Trinity, which we have already transcribed here, the praised Garnier presently subjoins: "Following both" (namely Philastrius and Epiphanius) "Mercator says, in the letter on the difference etc., number 1: 'Nestorius, concerning the Word of God, does not indeed think as Paul does, who defines the Word not as substantive but as the uttered, efficacious Word of the power of God.' And in another place, namely in the Dissertation on the XI anathemas of Nestorius: 'Paul says that the Word of God is προφορικὸν καὶ πρακτικὸν λόγον καὶ ενεργετικὸν, that

is, he held the Word to be uttered and effective of power, not substantive, which the Greeks call οὐσιῶδες.'" Accordingly, as is derived from these testimonies of three more ancient writers already transcribed, Paul of Samosata taught that the Word of God which descended into Jesus was something uttered and without hypostasis, or ἀνυπόστατον. "But," you will now say, "since this is so, it must be that Paul is wrongly indicated in the aforementioned letter of Dionysius to him as having admitted two hypostases in Christ. For if the Word of God is ἀνυπόστατον, or destitute of hypostasis, how can it be that the Word of God and the man are two hypostases in Christ? Can the Word of God be at the same time both ἀνυπόστατον and ἐνυπόστατον, that is, destitute and not destitute of hypostasis? Was there perhaps in Christ the hypostasis of the Father, which however appears wholly unlike the truth that Paul taught?" I answer: this knot is indeed very hard to untie; yet Garnier, after raising it as an objection to himself, assigns in the Dissertation cited above a method by which it may be untied. It pleases me, therefore, to transcribe here the words in which he does so.

[68] "The solution of so entangled a question," he says, "must be dug out of the very mysteries of the Paulinian delirium. some things from Garnier, by which these may be reconciled with those, He imagined God like the sun, in which three things must be considered: the figure or disc itself, as it is called, and the two energies of illuminating and heating. He said the Father was like the figure and substance, the Word like the power of illuminating, the Holy Spirit like the power of heating; but the Word, he said (the same is to be thought of the Holy Spirit), could be regarded, just like our own, in a twofold state, namely according as it was either ἐνδιάθετον or προφορικὸν. (In the schools they say immanent and transient.) As long as it is in God, it has, if we believe Paul, no other hypostasis than that of the very one who understands, as neither has ours when it is thought of as inborn: but when it is uttered outwardly and sent forth, it begins to have its own hypostasis distinct from the one who utters it, which however it loses as soon as it has returned to God, from whom it had proceeded to accomplish a work. Paul therefore made the divine Word both ἐνυπόστατον, when it had departed from God, and ἀνυπόστατον, when it resided in God; and thus ἀνυπόστατον before the ages, ἐνυπόστατον in time. He added that the Word becomes the Son when it is uttered and begins to have its own hypostasis, for the utterance itself is the bringing forth of the Son into the light. He added also that at that time it becomes a certain God, not ἄἳδιον, and one who subsists of himself from eternity: for how would that come to be which already was? But a recent and new one, as one who began at Nazareth.

[69] "Nay, he also held that the Word, made Son, and now existing as God of himself, a method is proposed; descended into Jesus and performed in him the works which brought forth admiration; but that, having left him, when the passion or certain death was impending, it flew back to the Father, and that therefore neither can the Word be said to have suffered nor God to have died. He thought it a most certain argument of the desertion that Jesus in expiring had cried out: God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In this manner Garnier sets out, I will not say the opinion, but the fiction of Paul of Samosata on the Holy Trinity; which, although it be wholly insane and senseless, yet it can be gathered from it how Paul could assert the Word of God to be ἀνυπόστατον and yet at the same time admit two hypostases in Christ, one divine, the other human; nay also how all the rest of the things which are said of the Samosatene by the ancients can be reconciled with the rest of Paul's dreams, shall I say, or deliriums concerning the Trinity; especially if, as Garnier does in the praised Dissertation, you also add that the Word of God, having descended into Christ and having now been made a new God, was according to Paul, although in reality temporary, yet eternal by predestination; and moreover that two modes can be distinguished of the union or indwelling of the Word with Jesus, of the Son of God with the son of the Virgin; of which the one existed from the formation up to the absolute perfection of virtue, the other remained afterwards, at least until the passion: the former was as of the Word lodging as a guest in Jesus, the latter as of the Word properly indwelling; the former had the character of mere benefit, the latter of reward. And lest these things, and almost all the others comprised in Garnier's words just transcribed, be believed to have been attributed to Paul altogether without ground, I transcribe here the testimony of St. Athanasius on Paul's errors, which seems chiefly to have impelled Garnier to attribute them to Paul, and which you will perhaps not easily understand unless you do in fact attribute most of these same things to Paul.

[70] [this does not seem to have been invented without ground; inasmuch as, if it is not admitted, most of what Athanasius] It is expressed in these words in the praised Athanasius, in the book On the Saving Advent: "Paul of Samosata confesses God from the Virgin, God brought forth into the light at Nazareth, and having thence obtained the beginning of existence and of kingship. Yet he acknowledges in the same the efficacious Word from heaven and Wisdom, and thinks indeed that it was before the ages by predestination, but that it first began to exist at Nazareth; so that, he says, the one supreme God is the Father." In order to set out these words, which contain the mystery of the Samosatene heresy, than which almost nothing is more obscure, Garnier, in the place cited above, brings forward these things: "He" (Paul of Samosata) "therefore thought, in the manner which we have described" (see the words transcribed here at number 68), "if indeed this is to think and not rather to rave, that God, who is simply God and eternal, is one, yet has his λόγον, that is, Word, and his σοφίαν ἐνδιάθετον, that is, immanent wisdom, both of which he would at some time send forth from his bosom to fulfil a command, and, when it was fulfilled, recall to himself. But these, when sent, that is, the uttered λόγος and the extended σοφία, according as they departed from the one who sent them and so now existed of themselves and χώρις, that is, outside, so began to be certain hypostases, and even gods of themselves, but πρόσκαιροι or temporary. Each, therefore, if we believe the Samosatene, came to the Virgin, but Wisdom as the fashioner of the temple, or of the man, in whom, that is, the Word was to dwell; the Word as the indweller; and so it came about that God" (see the words of Athanasius just recited) "existed from Mary, and God was brought forth into the light at Nazareth, and thence obtained the beginning of existence and of kingship. He said, however, that a God of this kind, although he was temporary in reality, was eternal by predestination, and by that distinction he evaded the places of Scripture where eternity is attributed to the person of the Word."

[71] [asserts about the dogmas of Paul of Samosata you would perhaps not easily understand;] This is the interpretation applied by Garnier to the words of Athanasius just recited; and since, as it seemed to him, they cannot otherwise be fittingly set out, given the assertions of Epiphanius and the other ancients about the Samosatene (see number 66 and following), he judged that most of the senseless fictions concerning the Holy Trinity mentioned above are to be attributed to Paul. Hence further, if only Garnier thought rightly, as is not wholly unlike the truth, it follows not only that Paul, adhering to the said fictions, could at the same time call the Word of God ἀνυπόστατον, or destitute of hypostasis, and admit two hypostases in Christ, but also that he perhaps in fact asserted both the one and the other. There is no reason, then, why anyone should think, from the fact that Paul, on the testimony of Epiphanius, called the Word of God ἀνυπόστατον, that the letter of Dionysius to Paul in which Paul is hinted to admit two hypostases in Christ is erroneous, and consequently that it has been falsely foisted on the Saint. Nor do I say this only, but also that the said letter and the Saint's answer to the ten questions of Paul, provided only the Samosatene truly devised the things which Garnier states in the words recited above, contain no other head of doctrine at all, as handed down by Paul, which cannot in some manner be reconciled with all the things which the ancient writers relate about Paul's doctrine.

[72] To make the matter clearer, I set out the doctrine of Paul indicated in the letters of Dionysius to him. [but, if it is admitted, each of the things which are indicated about this in the two said letters, even with the assertions of all the ancients on Paul's doctrine,] From these, then, the Samosatene seems to have held that the Holy Spirit formed in the womb of Mary a man whom he destined as a temple to be inhabited in due time by the Word; that that man advanced by leading a studious life, and in that way pleased the Word more than other men, and drew him to dwell in him. The Word of God, therefore, having come down from heaven in the manner set out above, dwelt in him, but so that of one sole Christ there were two hypostases, and two persons, and two sons of God: one by nature, who was (according to predestination, that is) before the ages; and one καθ᾽ ὡμονυμίαν, or according to a sharing of appellation, Christ and Son of David, who was not before the ages but was in time, and according to the good pleasure of God received the name of Son; just as a city receives the name of its lord, and a house the name of him who built it. Thus, that Christ is another man besides God the Word, differing from the substance and dignity of the other Christ, and that the one Christ is indwelling and working the works of divine justice. These are the chief heads of the doctrine, or rather delirium, which the two letters to him published under the name of Dionysius insinuate, in almost as many and the same words, that Paul of Samosata taught. Compare these now with the heads of doctrine which Epiphanius, Athanasius and other ancient writers indicate that Paul maintained, and you will see, as I think, that nothing is related about Paul's doctrine in the two aforesaid letters which, in view of the Garnierian method I have already set out, openly conflicts with the assertions of Athanasius and the other ancient writers about it.

[73] Athanasius indeed seems, in the words transcribed here at number 70, may be reconciled; to hint that according to Paul's fictions the Word of God dwelt in Christ immediately from the very beginning in which he was formed in the Virgin's womb; whereas according to the two aforementioned letters this, by the Samosatene's fictions, took place only in the lapse of time, when Christ had already grown older and had advanced by the merit of his virtues; so that here the things indicated about Paul's doctrine in the said letters seem to conflict with what Athanasius, as it appears, insinuates about it. But it can be answered that the Samosatene (see what was said at number 69) asserted two modes of the union of the Word with Jesus, one from the very beginning of Christ's formation, the other effected in the lapse of time; and that Athanasius speaks of the former, while the discourse in the aforementioned letters is of the latter, and consequently that these do not conflict with him. Now, learned reader, from all that we have discoursed about Paul's doctrine you will, as I think, gather without difficulty that all the things which the ancient writers recorded about the Samosatene's inventions concerning the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of the Word can, as it appears, be sufficiently reconciled by the Garnierian method with what is insinuated about the same inventions in the two aforementioned letters, and consequently that it does not follow from the doctrine which these attribute to the Samosatene that to Dionysius of Alexandria

they have been falsely foisted, or that they do not have him as their author.

[74] [nor, if they cannot be reconciled, does it follow that these are not by Dionysius,] But if nevertheless the manner in which we have here brought into agreement, following for the most part in Garnier's footsteps, the things which both Athanasius and other ancient writers and the two aforesaid letters record about the doctrine of Paul of Samosata should perhaps displease for this reason, that it is not certain that whatever Garnier, in constructing that manner, attributes to Paul was truly asserted by him, and in particular that he insinuates that the Wisdom of God (see number 70) was taken by Paul for the Holy Spirit, contrary to what Athanasius (see again number 70) seems to assert; if, I say, the aforesaid manner should displease for this reason, and it should thus still appear doubtful whether those ancient writers do not in fact conflict with the aforesaid letters, I will indeed bring forward nothing further by which to pluck that doubt from the mind; but I then contend that, granted even that the assertions of the ancient writers about the Paulinian delirium openly conflict with the aforesaid letters, it is perhaps not therefore necessary that these have any other author than Dionysius. For since Paul of Samosata, as long as Dionysius lived, tried, as it appears, to conceal his impious doctrine about Christ and the Holy Trinity, and the Saint in the aforesaid two letters considered it in the manner in which Paul himself had explained it in a letter sent to him, it may be that Paul, lest he make his impiety public, did not explain clearly enough the doctrine which he followed concerning the Holy Trinity and Christ; whence it may have come about that Dionysius, when he wrote the aforesaid two letters, made the heads of the Paulinian doctrine somewhat different from those which Paul in fact taught and which the more ancient writers affirm that he taught. Now, if the matter be so, then, granted even that certain assertions of the ancients about Paul's doctrine openly disagree with the two said letters, it can by no means be concluded from this that those two letters, already so often mentioned here, and also so often published by various persons under the name of Dionysius of Alexandria, were not truly composed by Dionysius. Let us now see whether it cannot be proved by other arguments that these were indubitably not written by the Saint.

[75] just as not from the fact that the word consubstantial is approved in them. "The author of the letters," some say, "approves the word consubstantial, or homoousion, and says that the Fathers called the Son of God in that way. But it is certain that Dionysius of Alexandria, and the synod of Antioch in which the Samosatene was deposed in the year 270, rejected that word, and that in the time of Dionysius it could not have been said that the Fathers commonly used it." So, as I said, some. The words in which, as they say, the author of the letters approves the word consubstantial and asserts that the Fathers called the Son of God by it are these, in Labbe, tome 1 of the Councils, column 855: "But you say that Christ the Saviour was forsaken, not sparing him because he said on the cross: God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? You call him forsaken who was by nature Lord, and the Word of the Father, through whom the Father made all things, and whom the holy Fathers called Homoousion, that is, consubstantial with the Father." But in these words, as will be evident to one who considers them, the holy Fathers are said by the author of the letters only to have used the word consubstantial, not commonly, with no adverb added which would indicate a more frequent act. And that there were some Fathers who even before the age of Dionysius of Alexandria called the Son of God consubstantial with the Father appears most probable. For when Dionysius, as having asserted that the Son of God was a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father, had been denounced by the Pentapolitans to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, the synod then convoked by the Pontiff took it ill that the Son of God should be asserted to be a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father. St. Athanasius testifies to this in the Treatise On the Synods, number 43, writing thus: "When… certain persons had denounced to (Dionysius) the Roman Pontiff the Alexandrian" (our Saint) "for affirming that the Son was a thing made and not consubstantial with the Father, the synod gathered at Rome took the matter ill: and the Roman bishop" (Dionysius) "wrote back the opinion of all to his fellow-countryman," or rather, as the Greek has it, to his namesake, that is, to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria.

[76] Since, then, as seems to follow from these words of Athanasius, for this was used by more ancient persons, the word consubstantial was approved by Dionysius the Roman Pontiff and by the synod gathered by him, it appears most probable indeed that it was employed not only by Dionysius and the Fathers of the synod convoked by him, but also by others more ancient; and this is confirmed also from the fact that Dionysius was denounced to the Roman Pontiff, as one guilty of violating the faith, because he was thought by those men to assert that the Son of God was not consubstantial with the Father. For unless the word consubstantial had already, at the time when Dionysius was accused by the Pentapolitans, been well known and in use, nay received in the Church, the Saint does not seem likely to have been denounced by them to Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, as one guilty of violating the faith, for having asserted that the Son of God was not consubstantial with the Father. Hence further it follows that that very word was most probably used by some Fathers even before the age of Dionysius, and received by the Church. But if you say that the synod of Antioch, in which Paul of Samosata was deposed about five years after the death of Dionysius, rejected that word as less apt for combating Paul's errors, and that this would most probably not have been done by it if the same word had long since been in use and received in the Church, I answer that the word consubstantial was certainly received by Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, and that it was nevertheless rejected by the said synod of Antioch, which yet revered in the highest degree Dionysius the Roman Pontiff, to whom it even addressed its synodal letter on the condemnation of Paul of Samosata.

[77] Moreover, the synod of Antioch rejected the word consubstantial taken not in the sense in which it had previously been in use in the Church, nor was it disapproved by Dionysius. but in a far different sense (see the Commentary, number 228), so that it does not follow, from the synod of Antioch's having rejected the word consubstantial, that it had not previously been employed in the Church by the Fathers. As for what they say, however, that Dionysius disapproved the word consubstantial, that is certainly as far as possible from the truth. For although the Saint affirmed that he had not found this word expressed in Sacred Scripture, he nevertheless admitted the thing signified by that word. This is clear from the books of Refutation and Apology, very often praised above, written by Dionysius to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, for the sake of clearing himself. For in these, which he wrote after receiving from Dionysius of Rome the letter concerning the Pentapolitans' accusation against him, he brings forward these words, recited already above: "In another letter likewise I wrote things by which I repelled the charge of my adversaries and showed it to be lying, by which they said that I denied that Christ was consubstantial with God. For although I confess that I have nowhere either found or read this word in the Sacred Scriptures, yet my arguments, which follow, and which they kept silent, do not disagree with this opinion." From which indeed it is rightly gathered that the word consubstantial was not disapproved by the Saint, at least after he had received from Dionysius of Rome the letter concerning the Pentapolitans' accusation; and consequently, since the letters to the Samosatene most probably came into existence later than this, these cannot be denied to Dionysius because in one of them the word consubstantial is approved.

CHAPTER VI.

Of the remaining arguments which make for denying the two letters to the Samosatene to Dionysius; and whether, on the hypothesis that these nevertheless have the Saint as their author, one of them is not distinguished from the letter written by him to the church of Antioch.

Several passages on the Divinity of the Word, Two arguments which make for denying the two letters to the Samosatene to Dionysius I discussed in the preceding chapter. It remains that I now examine the others which also conduce to this. I begin with the chief one, as some think. St. Athanasius, when he had to defend the faith of Dionysius against those who contended that the holy Man had thought the same as the Arians, who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ, yet in his Apology written solely for this purpose brings forward neither the passage of the letter transcribed here at number 75, where Dionysius approved the Son of God being called consubstantial with the Father, nor any other in which the Saint teaches in the said letter the Divinity of the Son of God or of the Word; whereas several passages occur in it from which Athanasius could have demonstrated more clearly than the midday light that the Divinity of Jesus Christ was acknowledged by Dionysius. To omit the rest, I transcribe here two quite remarkable ones, which you will find in Labbe, tome 1 of the Councils, column 854 and following. The first runs thus: "It has therefore been demonstrated that it is a manifest sophism that you call the form of man a man, and the form and habit of a servant a servant, because the form of God is God. But Christ, who rose from the dead, died and lived, that he might be Lord of the dead and the living. For he is God by nature, who is Lord in all things; and raised from the dead, and recognized from his wounds to be true God, who had been crucified and had risen, he is proclaimed by Thomas with equal honour God and Lord.

[79] two of which are transcribed here, occur in the said letters to the Samosatene; "For the Lord and God rose having the scars in his hands, who had been wounded for our sake. For he who was handled was the God of the Apostles, not a man by nature" (see on this expression of Dionysius Turrianus in the Library of the Fathers reprinted at Lyons), "but God by nature, who is the heir of the nations and judges all the earth, as it is written: Arise… O God, who judgest the earth, for thou shalt be heir in all the nations. The Son of God, who is the Word, Christ the heir, died afterwards, after his servants the prophets, as he himself said in the Gospels to those who killed the prophets. How do you say that Christ is an eminent man and not truly God, and adored by every creature with the Father and the Holy Spirit, incarnate of the holy Virgin and Mother of God Mary? For for our sake he willed to be born of a woman; whence also he undertook the passion for us, who emptied himself and humbled himself unto death, even the death of the Cross, though he was otherwise equal to God, as it is written: He was made under the law, who according to his Divinity is the lawgiver, that he might redeem those who were under the law, and we might receive the adoption of sons, as the Scripture says." The second is this: "He who … was begotten of God before the ages, himself in the last times was born of a mother. Therefore the Jews are God-slayers, because they crucified the Lord of glory. For unless Christ had been the same who was God the Word, he could not have been a stranger to the power of sinning." So Dionysius in the aforesaid letter, most plainly indeed in the two passages already transcribed here

confessing the Divinity of the Divine Word, or of Jesus Christ, so that St. Athanasius, if he had held that letter to be the genuine offspring of Dionysius, would surely seem likely to have brought these forward in order to defend the Saint's faith concerning the Divinity of the Word against the Arians; and consequently, since he did not do so, he did not hold it to be a letter of Dionysius.

[80] But although this argument tells somewhat more strongly than the preceding against the opinion which attributes to the Saint the letter of Dionysius to Paul and the answer to Paul's ten objections, yet that these are not by Dionysius, because they are neither by Athanasius, it by no means proves the matter. For it can be answered that Athanasius perhaps had not examined all the compositions of Dionysius, which were great in number, so that, since the letter written by the Saint to the Samosatene could have been among the compositions of Dionysius not known to Athanasius, it is no wonder that this, although in fact written by Dionysius and conducing not a little to Athanasius's purpose, was nevertheless not cited by him against the Arians. Moreover, it may be that Athanasius, when he wrote the praised Treatise or Apology for vindicating the doctrine of Dionysius from the errors of the Arians, fleeing the snares of his enemies, who were pursuing him most savagely, was hiding in some place in which he had only very few books at hand: whence it may have come about that, since he did not have access to the two letters of Dionysius to Paul, he brought forward no passage from them, however truly written by Dionysius, for confuting the Arians. Add that men do not always remember all the things which they have either seen or read, so that Athanasius may not have cited the aforementioned letters, even though previously read by him and held as genuine compositions of Dionysius, for this reason, that he did not remember the things occurring in them which bore on his purpose. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded with certainty even from the silence of Athanasius about the two letters of Dionysius to Paul of Samosata that these were not truly composed by Dionysius.

[81] I now pass to another argument which those who deny the two said letters to Dionysius also adduce. nor mentioned by Basil, cannot be concluded with certainty: St. Basil, they say, in the ninth letter, otherwise the forty-first, to Maximus, writes thus of Dionysius of Alexandria: "Concerning the Spirit he uttered expressions by no means worthy of the Spirit, separating him from the adored Deity and numbering him among the lower things together with the created and ministering nature." From which words it most certainly follows that Dionysius, on the testimony of Basil, denied Deity to the Holy Spirit; wherefore, since the two letters to Paul of Samosata very often testify to the Deity of the same Holy Spirit, as will be evident to one who reads them even cursorily, they cannot have been composed by St. Dionysius. But I answer that Dionysius thought quite orthodoxly about the Holy Spirit, and only spoke somewhat crudely about him, probably in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor (see what I have discoursed on this subject in the Commentary), not from depravity of opinion but from an over-vehement zeal for struggling against Sabellius. And indeed that Dionysius thought orthodoxly about the Holy Spirit becomes clear even from Basil himself, when, in the book On the Holy Spirit, teaching what is to be believed about the Holy Spirit, he adduces some texts drawn from the Works of Dionysius in confirmation of his statements. Nor is there reason for you to say that no text is brought forward there by Basil from the two aforesaid letters, which nevertheless speak most splendidly about the Holy Spirit. For it can easily be that those letters had not come to Basil's knowledge. Moreover, Basil had no mind to bring forward in the place just cited absolutely all the texts, sought out from anywhere in all the Works of Dionysius, that would conduce to his purpose; so that nothing more can be had for denying the said letters to Dionysius from Basil's silence than from the silence of Athanasius mentioned above.

[82] but although another argument, But those who do not hold the aforesaid letters to be genuine Works of Dionysius can add to these two arguments, drawn from the silence of Athanasius and Basil, a third also, drawn likewise from the silence which was kept concerning the two letters to Paul of Samosata attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria in the ecumenical council of Ephesus, celebrated against Nestorius in the year 431. It pleases me to set this out somewhat more distinctly, so that it may appear how strong it is. Nestorius, put into the see of Constantinople in the year 428 on the death of Sisinnius, did not long abstain from disseminating the impious heresy with which he was infected. For in that very year he delivered before a numerous multitude of the people a sermon on the Lord's Incarnation full of heretical depravity, which is extant inserted in Garnier, tome 2 of the Works of Marius Mercator, page 5. According to this sermon and very many other records of ancient writers, that impious heresiarch, doing away with the name of Mother of God, tore Christ the Lord apart into two hypostases and persons; and asserted in him, as two natures, so also two sons and two Christs: one indeed, whom he would not have to be incarnate, God from God the Father; the other a man from the Mother, whom on that account he called not Θεοτόκον, that is, Mother of God, but Χριστοτόκον, that is, Mother of Christ. Moreover, against this impious heresy, which had already before been proscribed at Rome by Pope Celestine and the synod convoked by him, the ecumenical council was celebrated at Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned and deposed. In this St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, since Pope Celestine had created him his vicar, undoubtedly played the chief part.

[83] which is drawn from the council of Ephesus He had with him Peter, presbyter of the church of Alexandria and chief of the notaries of the council. He, at the command of the Fathers, brought forward, to be entered in the Acts of the Council, various testimonies of earlier bishops and Fathers in which it is quite openly asserted that the Word of God or Son was incarnate and made man. But although he seems to have taken diligent care (for he cites three patriarchs of Alexandria, namely Peter, Athanasius and Theophilus) not to pass over in silence any patriarch of Alexandria who had written on the subject to be treated opportunely for the purpose of the council, yet he does not mention Dionysius; whereas the Saint, if he had written to Paul the two letters mentioned, in which the Incarnation of the divine Word is most manifestly taught (see the words transcribed here at number 78 and following), would surely have had to be mentioned before all the other Fathers cited by Peter, as being older than they. Moreover, in the two letters to the Samosatene ascribed to Dionysius the most holy Virgin Mary is called at least six times Θεοτόκος, that is, Mother of God; wherefore, since these would thus tell most strongly against Nestorius, who would have the most holy Virgin both to be and to be called not Θεοτόκον or Mother of God but only Χριστοτόκον or Mother of Christ, there seems no need to doubt that Peter would have cited them if he had admitted that they were written by Dionysius. There is added that the asserting of two hypostases and persons of Christ the Lord, two Christs and two Sons, which Nestorius said, is most luminously disapproved in the aforementioned letters to Paul; so that, if these truly have Dionysius as their author, they would have had to be cited by Peter, the chief of the notaries, for more than one reason.

[84] In this manner those who think that the two mentioned letters to Paul of Samosata are to be denied to Dionysius can argue, [drawn from the silence, tells somewhat more strongly for denying those letters to Dionysius,] in order to prove their opinion, from the silence kept about them in the council of Ephesus; and they can further contend that the same letters were not written before the times of Nestorius, both from the fact that they indicate that two hypostases in Jesus Christ were established by Paul, which was the chief dogma of Nestorius; and from the fact that they very often call the most holy Virgin Θεοτόκον, that is, Mother of God; which word, although it was employed even before the times of Nestorius by St. Athanasius, yet no one older than Athanasius who used that word was cited in the council of Ephesus against Nestorius, nor does it seem to have been commonly used in the Church before the rise of the heresy by which he laid down that the most holy Virgin was to be called not Θεοτόκον or Mother of God but only Χριστοτόκον or Mother of Christ. But whether the said letters were written before or after the times of Nestorius, the argument for denying them to Dionysius drawn from the silence of the council of Ephesus does appear somewhat stronger than the preceding ones. There is indeed placed immediately before the testimonies of the Fathers cited in the council of Ephesus, in Labbe, tome 3 of the Councils, columns 505 and 508: "Peter, presbyter of Alexandria and chief of the notaries, said: Since we have at hand the codices of the most holy and most sacred Fathers and bishops, and of various martyrs besides, and have selected some heads from them, we shall read them out, if it so seem good to you. Flavian, bishop of the Philippians, said: Let them be read, and entered in the records of the Acts."

[85] From which words someone might perhaps reason thus. In the council of Ephesus Peter, the chief of the notaries, whatever can be opposed against it, brought forward, as is clear from the words just recited, only the testimonies of those more ancient bishops and Fathers whose codices he had at hand; and consequently, since it may be that he did not have at hand the codex which contained the Works of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, it ought to surprise no one that no text at all from the mentioned letters to Paul of Samosata, however truly written by Dionysius and most apt for combating the errors of Nestorius, was brought forward by Peter. Moreover, someone will perhaps also say that it may easily be that Peter, the chief of the notaries, had not examined the letters of Dionysius to the Samosatene, and that hence it came about that he produced no text from them. But both to this second answer and to the first, by which someone might perhaps judge that the argument drawn from the silence of the council of Ephesus for denying the said letters to the Samosatene to Dionysius is worth nothing more than the preceding ones, it seems it can be answered that it does not appear likely either that the Works of Dionysius were not at hand for Peter, the chief of the notaries, or that he had not examined them. For there is scarcely to be any doubt that all the Works of Dionysius still existed entire at the time of the council of Ephesus, if not in most other cities, at least in the city of Alexandria, inasmuch as Dionysius had been its bishop. Wherefore, since it likewise does not appear that there is to be any doubt that St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and Peter, presbyter of that church, who accompanied him to the council of Ephesus, diligently searched all the codices of the ancient Fathers, and especially of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, existing at Alexandria, before setting out for the council, and noted the texts and passages in them suitable for confuting Nestorius, it does not seem likely that Peter would not have come to know the letters sent to the Samosatene, if these had ever been written by Dionysius. But if you would have it that the said letters, however well known, were brought to Ephesus, where they did not otherwise exist, neither by Cyril nor by Peter, I answer that this does not seem likely; and moreover that those letters at least, inasmuch as they most openly condemn the impious doctrine of Nestorius, would probably have had to be cited by Peter if they had had Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, of the highest authority among the Easterners

especially, as their true author, or rather, if they had truly existed at that time, and had not merely been attributed to Dionysius afterwards.

[86] [seems to tell; yet it does not follow from this that the said letters are not by Dionysius,] Accordingly, the matter having been maturely weighed, the argument drawn from the silence of the council of Ephesus seems to tell somewhat more strongly than the two other arguments drawn from the silence of Athanasius and Basil against the opinion of those who ascribe the two letters to the Samosatene to Dionysius. But that very silence of the council of Ephesus tells still much more strongly against it if it is considered jointly with the silence not only of Athanasius and Basil, but also of absolutely all the ancient writers. For the two mentioned letters to the Samosatene are found cited by no ancient writer whatever, and seem to have been wholly unknown before the beginning of the century just past, when they were brought to light. But those who attribute the said letters to Dionysius reply: "St. Dionysius, as was said in the Commentary, most probably wrote to Paul of Samosata in order to recall him from error, and that the Saint in fact did so Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, an ancient writer, also testifies in book 2 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 8, in the words transcribed into the Commentary at number 305; and although the praised Theodoret nowhere indicates how many or which letters the Saint sent to the Samosatene, and it may be that from this writer's vague or general testimony concerning letters sent by Dionysius to the Samosatene some later writer seized the handle either of feigning at will the two aforementioned letters to the Samosatene, or, having found them already written indeed but marked with no author's name, of foisting them on Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, yet no positive reason can be brought forward by which it may be solidly proved that this was in fact done in the case of the two said letters.

[87] "For the arguments drawn from the silence of the council of Ephesus, of Athanasius, Basil and other ancient writers, just as it is not made certain from the style in which they are written; cannot, as all the learned will readily admit, render the matter certain and undoubted. The same is to be said of the arguments drawn both from the doctrine attributed to Paul in the two said letters and from the diversity of style in which some contend that these and the Fragments of the compositions of Dionysius in Eusebius, books 6 and 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, were written." So say those who attribute the said letters to Dionysius as their genuine author. And indeed not undeservedly nor without foundation do they speak thus. For if all things done a thousand and more years ago are to be held as mere fictions and fables because they are not mentioned by ancient writers, almost innumerable things which are nevertheless thought most certainly to have happened would have to be relegated to old wives' tales. It cannot, therefore, be concluded with certainty, on account of the silence alone of the council of Ephesus and of the ancient writers about the letters of Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, that these do not have Dionysius as their genuine author, although meanwhile on that account the matter may not undeservedly be doubted. Further, that nothing either is to be had from the doctrine attributed to Paul in the two said letters for denying these indubitably to Dionysius is clear from what I discoursed in chapter V. As regards the diversity of style which some think is found in the said letters and in other Works of Dionysius, it cannot be established with sufficient certainty from this either that the said letters were not composed by Dionysius. For as to what they say, that the style in which these were written is lowly, diffuse and involved, and wholly unlike the style in which the other compositions of the Saint were written, not all, as I think, who have attentively compared those letters with the Fragments of other Works of Dionysius that survive in Eusebius, and with the letter to Basilides mentioned above, will judge so.

[88] Moreover, suppose that the style in which the said letters were written [nay, the opposite appears more probable: but if the said letters are truly by Dionysius, the opinion] differs somewhat from the style of the Saint's other compositions; this can arise from the frequent texts of Sacred Scripture which had to be mixed into the letters, as the nature of the subject required; so that from the style in which those letters were written, however somewhat different perhaps from the style of the other compositions of Dionysius, it cannot be certain that those letters are to be denied to the Saint. Wherefore, since this too can be certain neither from the silence of the council of Ephesus and the ancient writers nor from elsewhere, as has already been said; and since the said letters do not bear an undoubted mark of forgery, and Turrianus found them signed with the name of Dionysius in an ancient manuscript codex of good repute, it certainly appears to me more probable, as I have already remarked in the Commentary, that the same letters truly have Dionysius as their author, although meanwhile I do not hold this as undoubted (for which reason they too had to be treated of here in the Appendix), chiefly because, from what has already been argued, neither the council of Ephesus, nor Athanasius, nor any other writer before the century just past seems to have known those letters. And so I have now set out what I think of the two letters which were to be treated of here; it remains that I now discuss whether, on the hypothesis that they indubitably have Dionysius as their author, the second of them, namely the Saint's answer to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, is the same as the letter sent by Dionysius to the church of Antioch, in which, being unable, on account of bodily infirmity and advanced old age, to come to the council to be celebrated at Antioch against the Samosatene, to which he had been invited, he set out to the Fathers of the council what he himself thought on the question or matter to be treated in the council against that heresiarch. Baronius, as I have already taught at number 302 in the Commentary, judged that both these letters just mentioned are the same.

[89] [which takes the answer to the ten questions of Paul as part of the letter to the Antiochenes;] Tillemont, in tome 4 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, in the Notes on Dionysius of Alexandria, page 661, does not seem wholly averse to this opinion of Baronius. For he says there that it may be that that composition, that is, Dionysius's answer to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, was part of the letter mentioned by the synod of Antioch; so that, since the letter of Dionysius which the synod of Antioch mentioned, and which afterwards, according to the second council of Antioch, it transmitted with its canonical letter to all the churches everywhere, is the same as the letter just mentioned written by Dionysius to the church of Antioch, there ought to be no doubt that Tillemont was not wholly averse to the opinion of Baronius. And the reason why he was so disposed towards it is this: "That letter," he says, or the answer of Dionysius to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, "speaks of Paul in such general terms as if it were not directing its discourse to him, and designates him only by the title of the Samosatene; so that, if ever it addresses him, it sufficiently appears that this is not done for the sake of honour, but in the manner in which we are accustomed to address those whom we attack." So Tillemont, almost word for word, presently also inferring that it may be that that little Work, or answer to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata, formed part of the letter designated by the council of Antioch, namely the second, or was added to it. This opinion of Tillemont does not appear wholly improbable, and for its confirmation it can also be added that Dionysius, in his answer to the tenth question of Paul of Samosata, after bringing forward many things for confuting that tenth objection of Paul, speaks thus of the Samosatene: "See, brethren, how great is the blindness. All day and night he sharpens his weapons against the Lord, and the man undertakes to make war, neither knowing how to make war nor trained in the art of making war." From which words, inasmuch as they are directed to several persons, it seems to follow that that letter, or answer to the ten questions of Paul, was intended not for him, but for the brethren whom the Saint addresses in the words recited. Whence it becomes not improbable that this forms part of the letter written by the Saint to the church of Antioch, or rather to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, and afterwards added by the Fathers of the second council of Antioch to their synodal letter.

[90] [but not likewise the opinion which makes this letter wholly the same as the answer,] To Tillemont, therefore, who inclines to believe this, I not unwillingly assent; but I cannot likewise assent to Baronius. For although Tillemont does not much disagree with him, Baronius nevertheless indicates not obscurely, in the words recited at number 302 in the Commentary, that the aforesaid answer of Dionysius to Paul's questions is held by him as the entire letter of the Saint to the church of Antioch, or to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. But in the whole of that Answer, long as it is, the Saint nowhere presents any words (if you except those just recited) from which you might in any way gather that he is writing to the church of Antioch, or to the bishops of the patriarchate of Alexandria. Hence, however, it appears probable to me that that answer, if it was truly intended for the church of Antioch or the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, formed not the entire letter which the Saint wrote to them, but only a part of it. For who would believe that Dionysius, in the whole letter which he wrote to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, did not address them for the sake of honour either at its very beginning or several times in the course of it? Certainly Dionysius, in the letter which he wrote to Basilides, a bishop of the Pentapolis, and which we transcribed entire here above, addresses Basilides more than once both at the beginning of the letter and in the course of it, and speaks to him at once honourably and most lovingly; so that, since the Saint used this courteous manner of writing when writing to a single bishop, he undoubtedly used the same also when writing to several, or rather to all the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. There is added that the Saint in his answer to the ten questions of Paul does not exhort the aforementioned bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch to a strenuous defence of the orthodox truth, which, however, we taught in the Commentary the Saint most probably did in his letter to the church of Antioch. Accordingly, on account of all that I have here discoursed, the answer of Dionysius to the Samosatene's questions cannot be held as the entire letter of the Saint to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch.

[91] Further, what also makes the opinion which takes the said answer at least as part of the letter written by the Saint to the church of Antioch as not improbable, to be held as not improbable is that Dionysius, in his answer to Paul's tenth objection, also speaks thus to Paul: "Behold, it is fulfilled in you and in those who follow you: 'Against me'" (the words are of psalm 68) "'they spoke who sat in the gate, and they sang against me who drank wine' — not against me, I say, but against God. I do not know who offered you this troubled act of impiety as a cup, and poured darkness over you, so that you do not understand what you say. For I wrote to you in the letter to which you wrote back these things, that you willingly deceive yourself, O friend. I did not say friend as to a fellow-presbyter, but as to that other friend to whom it was said by the Lord: 'Friend,

wherefore art thou come?'" From which words, since the Saint by them indicates chiefly that in the letter immediately preceding the answer which he gives to Paul's questions he had called Paul of Samosata friend in no other manner than that in which Christ called Judas so, it seems to follow that the Saint, in the very answer which he gave to Paul's questions, did not deign to grant Paul of Samosata, as having by then become still worse, even the greeting which friends are accustomed to bestow on friends. Wherefore, since Dionysius, as is said in the synodal letter of the second council of Antioch, praised very often above, did not deign to grant the Samosatene even a greeting in the letter which he wrote to the church of Antioch, the opinion which thinks that Dionysius's answer to the ten questions of Paul of Samosata is to be held at least as part of the letter written to the church of Antioch is indeed confirmed by the Saint's words recited.

[92] But although this is in some manner confirmed from this, as I have already said, though not as certain. it cannot be held as certain and undoubted even from the said words. For since Dionysius directs his discourse to Paul in these very words, someone will perhaps not undeservedly contend that the aforesaid answer was composed by Dionysius to Paul himself, and consequently that it is wholly distinct from the letter written by Dionysius to the church of Antioch, since this, on the testimony of the synodal letter just again praised, was not written to Paul of Samosata. But if you reply that the Saint (see what was said at number 89) directs his discourse to the Samosatene by the aforementioned words only in the manner in which we are accustomed to address those whom we attack, it can be answered that this seems less probable for this reason, that the Saint addresses Paul too frequently in that answer, and that with no indication at all added from which it might in any way become known that he is only attacking Paul, but directing his discourse to another or to others. Moreover, what also makes for establishing a complete distinction between the answer to the Samosatene's questions and the Saint's letter to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch is that the latter was sent by the Fathers of the second council of Antioch, as is understood from their praised synodal letter, everywhere to all the churches dispersed throughout the whole world; whence it seems to follow that it was most probably still very well known even in the time of Nestorius, and inserted in many codices.

[93] can be held. Wherefore, if it were not wholly different from Dionysius's answer to the ten questions of Paul, this too would likewise have been still very well known in the time of Nestorius. But that this was very well known in the time of Nestorius does not appear. For although in it the most holy Virgin Mary is called at least five times Θεοτόκος or Mother of God, which appellation is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of Nestorius, who contended that the Holy Virgin was to be called not Θεοτόκον or Mother of God but Χριστοτόκον or Mother of Christ, yet no text from that letter or answer was brought forward against Nestorius in the council of Ephesus, in which nevertheless several opinions of other holy Fathers bearing much less on the matter were produced; so that that letter or answer seems not to have been known, and consequently to be wholly distinct from the letter written by Dionysius to the church of Antioch, or to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. Accordingly, on the hypothesis that the two letters published in the century just past as written by Dionysius to the Samosatene truly have Dionysius as their author, it is not yet certain, as is clear from what has already been argued, that the second of these two letters, or the Saint's answer to the ten questions of Paul, is to be held even as a part only of the letter which he sent to the church of Antioch or to the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch, although meanwhile this can be held, as I have already taught before, as not improbable.

CHAPTER VII.

Of some little Works ascribed to Dionysius either truly or falsely.

Other books or Treatises which Dionysius Besides the Works to be ascribed to Dionysius either certainly or doubtfully, which I have already enumerated, both in the Commentary and in this Appendix, as mentioned by writers under the name of Dionysius, there still remain some of which mention likewise occurs in writers, and yet the epoch of their writing is not known with certainty. Among these are to be counted four treatises or books, probably composed for the most part in epistolary form (for Dionysius seems to have used this in almost all his Works), and to these must then be added also some letters. Of three of the four said Treatises or books Eusebius as well as Jerome make mention. The latter indeed in the book On the Illustrious Writers of the Church in these words: "On Nature, to Timothy; On Temptations, to Euphranor; also many letters to Basilides, in one of which he" (namely Dionysius of Alexandria) "asserts that he had also begun to write Commentaries on Ecclesiastes." And Eusebius in book 7, chapter 26 of the History in these: "There are many other letters of his" (of Dionysius of Alexandria) "with us, and longer books written in epistolary form and style; of which kind are those books On Nature, dedicated to the boy Timothy. Likewise the book On Temptations, which he also inscribed to Euphranor. He himself besides, in the letter which he wrote to Basilides, a bishop of the Pentapolis, testifies that he composed a Commentary on the beginning of the book which is called Ecclesiastes."

[95] From these words of Jerome and Eusebius, therefore, we have ascertained three treatises, composed: the letters which he wrote, of which one was written On Nature, another On Temptations, and the third for interpreting Ecclesiastes. Mention of a fourth, in which the Saint interpreted the first letter to the Corinthians, is found in Jerome alone, in the letter written to Pammachius, formerly the fifty-second, now, namely in the more recent edition of the Works of Jerome by the Benedictines, the thirty-first. And these indeed are the treatises or books of Dionysius about which I have proposed to discourse in this present chapter; and the letters are about these. The first is a letter of rebuke to the Saint's flock established at Alexandria; the second, to the Romans on the office of deacon, sent by Hippolytus. Both these letters Eusebius mentions in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 46; and he also, in the ninth chapter of the seventh book of the same History, mentions a letter written about Lucian to Dionysius of Rome; and in the twenty-second chapter, two other letters, of which one was written On the Sabbath, the other περὶ γυμνασίου, that is, On Exercise. Both these latter are also mentioned by Jerome in the Treatise On the Illustrious Writers of the Church, who there also counts among the Works composed by Dionysius both a letter to Heraclas, a bishop in Egypt, and likewise another letter to the Alexandrian church written from exile. But the latter (as you will easily gather from what I discoursed in the Commentary at number 138) is perhaps not different from the letter written by Dionysius to the fellow-presbyters of the Alexandrian church, and the former beyond all doubt not different from the letter written by the Saint to Hierax and mentioned in the Commentary at number 283 and elsewhere; so that it is not necessary to say more here about these two letters, and it may suffice, for fuller knowledge of them, to refer the curious reader to the same Commentary at the places just cited.

[96] Lambecius, in book 3 of the Commentaries on the Imperial Library, page 18, affirms that two further letters exist in this library in manuscript, hitherto unpublished, and two which he did not write are enumerated. under the name of Dionysius, archbishop of Alexandria, at the end of an ancient anonymous exposition of the books of Kings. "At the end of the exposition of the second Book of Kings," he says, "and indeed at folio 123, there are extant two letters of St. Dionysius, archbishop of Alexandria, hitherto, so far as I know, unpublished, of which the first is inscribed and begins with these words: Διονυσίου ἐπιστολὴ Θεοδοσίῳ μονάζοντι. Τὶ θαυμάζεις ὅτι ὀυδενὸς ἁμαρτήματος ὅλη τραυματίζεται πόλις, ὅπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ γενόμενον ἔγνως· And the other in this manner: Τοῦ ἀυτοῦ ἐπιστολὴ Ὀυρσενουφίῳ ἀναγνώστῃ. Ὁ μὲν οὖν Αβεσσαλὼμ δίκην παρὰ τῆς θείας ἀπητήθη δίκης ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τοῦ οἰκίου πατρὸς etc. And the reason why those letters were inserted there is this, that the History of the reign of David, which is contained in the second book of Kings, can be illustrated by them." So the praised Lambecius, ascribing the two letters which he mentions to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, without any hesitation. But William Cave, Fabricius and some other learned men rightly contend in their Libraries of Writers that these are neither by Dionysius of Alexandria nor by any other Dionysius. For both have Isidore of Pelusium as their author, among whose letters they are found: the first, to Theodosius, in book 1, the thirty-ninth letter, page 10; the second, to Ursinuphius, in book three, the two hundred and nineteenth letter, page three hundred; to whom also, as the praised Cave rightly observes, there are others as well, namely in book two, letter 240, and in book four, letters 78 and 80.

[97] [the Saint (showed) against Democritus and Epicurus that the world was founded not by a chance] Of those two letters, therefore, inasmuch as they are not by Dionysius, there is no need to discourse further here. Wherefore, since no other Works remain, besides those already enumerated, which I find mentioned in writers under the name of Dionysius, the next thing is that I should treat solely of those which I enumerated at numbers 94 and 95 and which are certainly by Dionysius. This, then, I now perform in this present chapter, only the letter given to Dionysius of Rome about Lucian being deferred to the following chapter. I begin with the Saint's books inscribed to Timothy, On Nature. It would be useless to inquire in any way into the time at which those books were written. For no chronological mark at all from which you might gather it occurs either in their Fragments, brought by Eusebius into the fourteenth book of the Preparation for the Gospel, or anywhere else. As regards the subject they treat, however, a fuller and more certain discourse can be undertaken about it. In those books, namely, the Saint excellently confutes Democritus and Epicurus, who taught that this universe emerged from a chance concourse of atoms, and indicates not obscurely that he had it in mind to refute all the similarly false opinions of the philosophers about nature, in order then to demonstrate that God alone is its author. "For now," says the Saint himself in Eusebius, in the book of the Preparation for the Gospel just cited, chapter 26, page 779, "we have run over summarily only a few things from the works of the most wise providence; the same things a little later, when we shall dispute against him whose reputation for learning is greater, we shall pursue more amply and more fully, God leading."

[98] concourse of atoms, but by God, The reasonings by which Dionysius strove to confute Democritus and Epicurus are no longer extant entire; but, as I have already hinted, Eusebius has preserved for us in his fourteenth book of the Preparation for the Gospel quite remarkable Fragments of them, lest a wholly excellent Work should perish entirely. And in these Fragments, of which the last five chapters of the aforesaid fourteenth book of the Preparation for the Gospel almost wholly consist, St. Dionysius, in order to show that nothing in this world by a chance concourse of atoms

but that all things were made by the sole will of God, brings forward as examples various things usually constructed for the daily use and convenience of human life, namely a garment, a house, a ship, and asks whether it can be that works so artful, composed of so many parts fitly and orderly united among themselves, were made without the hand of a craftsman. Hence further, in order to attribute to God the admirable construction of the whole world, he concludes by questioning thus: "Who, moreover, would listen with patient ears to the claim that this vast house, consisting of heaven and earth, which on account of that very great and manifold power of wisdom which resides in it is called the world, received all its order and adornment from atoms borne along in no order, and that confusion itself was changed into a world? Who, that those fixed motions and revolutions proceed from some inconstant impulse? Who, that the perfect harmony of the heavenly things is tempered by disordered and ill-fitting instruments? And how, while there is one essence of all and an incorruptible nature, differing, as they say, only by the difference of magnitudes and figures, are some bodies nevertheless, as they themselves call them, divine, superior to the fates, and everlasting, or at least, as someone preferred to put it, of longer age; and some of these are perceived by sight, as the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth and water; while others escape the senses, as gods, daemons and souls?"

[99] Thus Dionysius, afterwards adding, at once industriously and aptly, many more things in order to show that the world, the stars, showed in the books On Nature inscribed to Timothy, living creatures, the planets and all other things which are contained within the compass of the world were created by God alone. And this indeed the Saint performs in the twenty-fifth chapter of the aforesaid fourteenth book of the Preparation for the Gospel in Eusebius; and in the following chapter he bestows no less diligent effort on proving this very thing specifically from the wonderful structure of man. The words in which he does this the curious reader will find in Eusebius at the place just cited, and I therefore do not transcribe them here, content to have transcribed only those which I have just recited as a specimen of the subject which is treated in the mentioned books of the Saint On Nature. Further, these books, as I have already sufficiently hinted above, are inscribed Timotheo τῳ παιδι, and hence some have contended that those books were dedicated by Dionysius to his son, and on that account make him married. But what I think should be determined about this matter I have set out in the Commentary at number 33 and following; to which, therefore, studious reader, I refer you, and now treat of the Treatise which Dionysius inscribed to Euphranor, On Temptations.

[100] As regards the time at which it was put together, [in the Treatise dedicated to Euphranor perhaps taught how one must here contend with the flesh and the devil,] that is no more ascertained than the time at which the aforementioned Treatise On Nature was written, nor does anything occur anywhere, either in that very Treatise On Temptations or in the other Writings of the Saint, by which it might in any way become known, even with some latitude. Nor does only this inconvenience befall this Treatise of Dionysius, but also that not even the subject which it treats can be defined accurately enough. It was perhaps written about the various ways in which man is usually circumvented by the devil and the flesh and enticed to sin. It perhaps also taught how those snares of the devil and the flesh are to be overcome, and how man ought here to fight with them so that the victory may be sure. However that may be, since that Treatise, like most others put together by our Saint, has perished, it matters little that the subject treated in the books constituting the said treatise cannot be more exactly determined. Accordingly, dropping further investigation, I proceed to two other treatises composed by Dionysius.

[101] The one comprised a Commentary on, or interpretation of, the first part of Ecclesiastes, the other of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. [and of the two Commentaries which he wrote, in one he expounded the first part of Ecclesiastes,] Of neither is anything known to survive anywhere. The subject about which they were written is sufficiently known from the very title they bear. As regards the time of writing, however, no one, as I at least think, could define it by any means at all. St. Dionysius, on the testimony of Eusebius, book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 26, already cited above, asserted in one of the letters which he wrote to Basilides, a bishop of the Pentapolis, that he had composed Commentaries on the beginning of the book which is called Ecclesiastes; and these St. Jerome also mentions in On the Illustrious Writers of the Church (see the words recited at number 94), and after him, as Sixtus of Siena testifies in the Holy Library, Procopius of Gaza in the explanation of the third chapter of Genesis; and nothing further is known about them.

[102] in the other the First Epistle to the Corinthians; And these are the things which I can assert about the Commentaries written by the Saint on Ecclesiastes. As regards the Commentaries likewise put together by the Saint on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, besides what has already been said about them and the testimony adduced from St. Jerome's letter to Pammachius, the thirty-first, formerly the fifty-second, nothing whatever occurs to be recorded about them. Since, nevertheless, it is evident from the words in which Jerome testifies in the aforesaid letter that these were written by Dionysius that those Commentaries were of no small importance, I transcribe those words here. "Origen," he says, enumerating the interpreters of the said Epistle, "Dionysius" (namely the bishop of Alexandria), "Pierius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus, Apollinaris interpreted this Epistle" (namely the First to the Corinthians) "most amply." Most amply, then, as is understood from these words of Jerome, St. Dionysius interpreted the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and consequently probably composed a Commentary of no small importance on it; about which, since I have nothing more to add, and have already brought forward what I have found committed to writing about the four Treatises of Dionysius mentioned above, it remains that I now treat of the Saint's letters, of which I also proposed to treat in the present chapter.

[103] but what he said in the two letters, one of which he sent to the Romans The letter of rebuke written by the Saint to his Alexandrian flock, as also the letter sent by him to the brethren at Rome on the office of deacon, is enumerated in Eusebius, namely, as I have already taught, in book 6, chapter 46 of the Ecclesiastical History, together with the letters which were composed by Dionysius on the occasion of the schism of Novatian, and consequently about the year 250 or 251. Hence, further, someone might perhaps conclude that those two letters, the one on the office of deacon, the other of rebuke to his Alexandrian flock, were likewise written at about the same time, and consequently should have been treated not in this Appendix but in the Commentary. But I answer that not even any of the letters which Eusebius mentions, at the place just cited, together with the Saint's letter of rebuke to his flock and the letter on the office of deacon sent to Rome, were treated by me in the Commentary unless their epoch was more nearly perceived from the subject about which they were written; and that hence it is that I did not think the said letters, of which one was written to the Alexandrian flock and the other to Rome on the office of deacon, should be treated there. And indeed no one, as I think, will deny that this was rightly done who has ascertained and established that writings which are enumerated by Eusebius in one and the same chapter were not always composed at one and the same time.

[104] For since Eusebius does in fact, as it would not be difficult to show, now and then enumerate in one and the same chapter different writings of authors which were composed at different times, it certainly cannot be known from the letters together with which the said two letters are mentioned by Eusebius in book 7 of the History, on the office of deacon, the other of rebuke to his flock chapter 46, whether these were composed at the same time as those or at another; and consequently they belong, according to my plan, to this Appendix, since, namely, nothing else occurs for defining their epoch, nor do the very subjects about which they were written conduce to it. These are indeed known only in some manner from the titles with which the letters are marked by Eusebius and Jerome; and hence indeed it becomes most probable that by the letter written to the Romans on the office of deacon they were instructed by Dionysius as to what is the dignity of a deacon, what his order, what his functions; but nothing at all is had from this by which it can be in any way defined at about what time that letter was written. As regards the other letter, however, the letter of rebuke which Dionysius wrote to his Alexandrian flock, the Saint seems to have written it when, driven into exile, he was absent from Alexandria.

[105] But since Dionysius was twice compelled to go into exile from Alexandria, once, namely, under Decius and once under Valerian, [gave, and in two others written On Exercise and On the Sabbath treated, is not known distinctly enough.] it cannot be declared whether he wrote the said letter under Decius or under Valerian, and consequently the time at which he did so remains uncertain, even considering the subject of the same letter, from which, further, we learn nothing else than that by it, as being a letter of rebuke, the Christians living at Alexandria were reproved by the Saint; the cause meanwhile, or the fault, on account of which this was specifically done by Dionysius, remaining wholly obscure; so that nothing further remains to be said of the said letter either, on which the studious reader may also consult numbers 98 and 138 of the Commentary; and I therefore proceed to the two remaining letters of the Saint of which I promised above that I would treat here. One was written On the Sabbath, the other περὶ γυμνασίου or On Exercise. Both again offer nothing from which you might in any way gather at about what time they were written. The subject also about which they were written is not known distinctly enough from the titles with which they are adorned by Eusebius and Jerome; nor have I any mind to proceed by conjectures in order perhaps to attain it by divining; so that about these two, inasmuch as they have wholly perished with most other compositions of Dionysius and furnish no further material for discoursing about themselves on any head, I have nothing more to say.

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the Saint's letter to Dionysius of Rome about Lucian; and on this occasion some further observations on certain opinions or dogmas of Dionysius.

The Saint's letter written about Lucian: Of all the letters of Dionysius enumerated at number 95 of this Appendix which remained to be treated here, I deferred to this place only the one written about Lucian. This indeed was both sent to Dionysius of Rome, on the testimony of Eusebius, and is mentioned by the praised Eusebius in the same ninth chapter of the seventh book of the Ecclesiastical History in which two letters written by Dionysius on baptism are mentioned. But the epoch at which it was written cannot be defined either from its having been written to Dionysius of Rome or from its being mentioned by Eusebius in the same chapter as two other letters on baptism. The first I prove thus: Dionysius of Rome, to whom that letter is asserted by Eusebius to have been written, is beyond doubt no other than the Dionysius of whom the same Eusebius

had written thus a little before, namely in the seventh chapter of the same book, when mentioning the Saint's fourth letter on baptism, distinct from the letter written about Lucian and to be treated here: "His" (Dionysius of Alexandria's) "fourth letter on baptism was written to Dionysius, then indeed a presbyter of the city of Rome, but who some time afterwards was appointed bishop of the same city." The letter of Dionysius about Lucian, of which we are here treating, was therefore, as you will easily gather from these words of Eusebius, written either before or after Dionysius of Rome had been raised to the supreme chair of the Church.

[107] and its epoch neither from Dionysius of Rome, to whom it was written, But whether it be laid down that it was written before or after that promotion of Dionysius of Rome, nothing sufficiently certain and definite can indeed be had for determining its epoch from its having been written to him. For suppose it was written before Dionysius of Rome was elected Pontiff: since he was a contemporary of our Saint, and undoubtedly flourished before the year 247, in which Dionysius of Alexandria was raised to the patriarchal chair of Egypt, and from the year 247 to the year 259, in which Dionysius of Rome was taken up as Pontiff, twelve years run out, it cannot be known in which of these years Dionysius composed the said letter, provided indeed it was not written still earlier. But if you would rather lay down that it was written when Dionysius of Rome was already Pontiff, not even so will you have anything by which to define with certainty in what determinate year it was written. For since Dionysius of Rome was promoted to the chair of St. Peter in the year 259, and from this year to the year 265, in which Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have taught, departed from among the living, there run out, counting both extremes, neither more nor fewer than seven years, it again cannot be known in which of these years the Saint wrote the letter about Lucian of which we are here treating.

[108] nor can it be ascertained from elsewhere. Accordingly, in whatever way the matter is regarded, the year in which the writing of the same letter should be placed certainly cannot be defined from its having been sent to Dionysius of Rome. Let us now see whether it can be defined here from its being mentioned by Eusebius in the same ninth chapter of the seventh book as two letters written by Dionysius on baptism. Eusebius, as I have already remarked above, now and then mentions in one and the same chapter several letters, even though not written at one and the same time; so that from the letter of which we are here discoursing being mentioned by Eusebius in the same chapter as two others, the year in which it was written cannot be determined either. But if, further, it had been composed on the same subject, namely on baptism, about which the two other letters with which it is mentioned by Eusebius in the said chapter were written, its epoch would surely be now nearly ascertained, since absolutely all the letters which Dionysius wrote either on baptism or on the occasion of the controversy which arose about it belong to the year 256 or to one or other of the two following. But Eusebius merely asserts that that letter was written about Lucian, and supplies nothing from which you could gather whether baptism or some other matter furnished the Saint with material for writing about Lucian; so that it is not even ascertained whether it was written on the occasion of the controversy about baptism which arose between Stephen and Cyprian, and consequently nothing can be had from this either for defining the epoch of the aforementioned letter.

[109] Would that it were meanwhile luminously established not only on what matters chiefly our Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, treated in the aforementioned letter to Dionysius of Rome, [Perhaps baptism was treated in the said letter. The opinion of Dionysius on this Sacrament,] in which perhaps some things about baptism were also disputed, but also what he taught in each of the letters which he wrote about baptism! Thus indeed, which would be not unpleasant to know, it would be held certain and established what opinion our Saint settled on concerning the validity of baptism conferred by heretics; about which, although already discussed in the Commentary, it will nevertheless help to discourse somewhat further here, on the occasion of the letter written to Dionysius of Rome about Lucian, in which baptism was perhaps also treated by the Saint, so that something more certain may be laid down about it. In the eleventh Paragraph of the Commentary I showed that it is most probable that baptism conferred by heretics was held as valid by Dionysius, and I opened the way of reconciling with that doctrine Jerome, who affirms that Dionysius agreed with the dogma of Cyprian on rebaptizing heretics; being led to this chiefly by this reason, that Basil, in the first letter to Amphilochius, canon 1, teaches that the very baptism of the Pepuzenes or Montanists, which nevertheless was undoubtedly invalid, was held as valid by Dionysius. What is asserted by Basil about the baptism of the Montanists, undoubtedly invalid though it was, being nevertheless approved by Dionysius, will perhaps seem strange and scarcely credible to some. So that it may appear, therefore, in what light this assertion of Basil is to be held, and that Jerome, lest he must be said to stray from the truth, must necessarily be explained in the way which I entered upon in the Paragraph of the Commentary just praised, I here weigh somewhat more carefully the doctrine of our Saint on the baptism of heretics, and at the same time Basil's assertions about it, not yet sufficiently discussed there.

[110] Basil, then, in the letter to Amphilochius just praised, canon one, writes thus: is set forth from Basil, conferred by the Pepuzenes. "As regards the Cathari, then, it has both been said before, and you have rightly admonished, that the custom of each region must be followed: because those who then made decisions about them went off into various opinions about their baptism. But the baptism of the Pepuzenes seems to me to have no reason, and I have wondered how this escaped Dionysius, a man skilled in the canons." Thus Basil, writing also thus to the same effect after some things interposed: "The Pepuzenes, therefore, are openly heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, wickedly and shamelessly attributing to Montanus and Priscilla the appellation of the Paraclete. Therefore, whether they are to be condemned because they attribute Divinity to men, or because they do injury to the Holy Spirit by comparing him with men, they are thus also liable to eternal condemnation, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. By what reason, therefore, should their baptism be admitted, since they baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla? For those have not been baptized who were baptized into things which have not been handed down to us. Wherefore, even if this escaped Dionysius the Great, we must not keep up an imitation of the error." Thus far Basil, indicating not obscurely that the baptism of the Pepuzenes or Montanists was held as valid by Dionysius, though through error, and at the same time, to show how undeservedly Dionysius thought so, adding the reason why baptism conferred by the Montanists or Pepuzenes cannot be valid.

[111] This one and Jerome may seem to conflict with each other; The Benedictines, in their more recent edition of the Works of Basil of the year 1730, observe thus on the former text already transcribed here: "Basil openly conflicts with Jerome, who in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers testifies that Dionysius thought the same as Cyprian about baptism. In this matter greater authority seems to be attributed to Basil than to Jerome. Basil had spent more effort in examining that matter. Moreover, with his testimony agrees the whole manner of acting of Dionysius, who interposed himself as intercessor for the Asiatics and Africans" (namely with Stephen, the Roman Pontiff), "much less that he was involved in the same cause as they. Nay, he also sufficiently declared his own opinion and that of his predecessors when he did not dare to baptize a man who had been initiated among the heretics with an impious baptism full of blasphemy, but had long since been received by his predecessors without baptism, before he had consulted Xystus" (see what was said in the Commentary in the § just mentioned), "bishop of Rome." These things say the praised Benedictines, contending that Basil here conflicts with Jerome. And indeed they contend this not wholly undeservedly. For since Basil testifies in the words just recited that the baptism of the Pepuzenes, who were heretics, though certainly invalid (see Basil's words above), was held as valid by Dionysius, from this testimony of this Saint it is rightly gathered that any baptism whatever, conferred by anyone whatever, whether heretic or orthodox, in which the legitimate rite was not lacking, was held as ratified by Dionysius. Now, since St. Jerome (see the Commentary, number 110) openly teaches that Dionysius agreed with the dogma by which Cyprian and very many other African bishops contended that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid, and consequently that those who came to the Church having been baptized by heretics alone ought to be rebaptized, St. Basil is not wholly undeservedly asserted by the praised Benedictines to conflict with him.

[112] [yet they do not so conflict that they cannot be brought into agreement by some means.] Yet these two holy Fathers do not so conflict, or disagree with each other, that they cannot by any means be brought into agreement. The way by which this may not unfittingly be done anyone will easily learn from what I brought forward in § XI of the Commentary. St. Dionysius judged, namely (see the said §), that baptism, although conferred by heretics alone, was to be held as valid; but since the Saint at the same time judged (go again to the said §) that those baptized by heretics alone could be rebaptized, and that in this matter each church was to be left to its own usage or custom, Jerome could assert that he agreed with the dogma of Cyprian, inasmuch as Cyprian contended that heretics ought, and consequently could, be rebaptized, and yet not openly conflict with Basil, who in the words recited above reports things from which it follows that baptism conferred by heretics with the due rite was held as valid by Dionysius. Accordingly, St. Basil here does not so undoubtedly conflict with Jerome as the praised Benedictines contend. As to what they say, that Dionysius, at the time when he did not dare to wash with a new baptism a man initiated among heretics alone with an impious baptism full of blasphemy before he had consulted Xystus, the Roman Pontiff, sufficiently declared his opinion by which he held baptism conferred by heretics alone as valid; this too will perhaps not appear to some altogether certain, as you will easily understand from what was said again in the same § XI of the Commentary.

[113] But whether Dionysius did or did not there sufficiently declare his opinion about baptism conferred by heretics, [Dionysius is to be excused in the error which he admitted concerning the reiteration of baptism,] it certainly becomes undoubted and clear, from his having held the baptism of the Pepuzenes as valid, on the testimony of Basil, that such baptism was held by him as valid whenever it had been conferred with the due rite; although meanwhile, as I taught in the § of the Commentary already so often named, he would have it left to each bishop freely to rebaptize or not to rebaptize, according to the custom of the church over which he presided, those who, by heretics alone

having been baptized by heretics, came to the Church. "But," you will say, "if such was the doctrine of Dionysius, it follows that he erred remarkably concerning the first Sacrament, and the one most necessary for salvation." I admit it: the Saint here most certainly strayed from the truth. But what then? St. Cyprian also strayed, and almost the whole African church with him, so that it ought to seem strange to no one that Dionysius, in a matter which had not yet in his age been defined as clearly as it was afterwards, embraced an erroneous opinion. He was carried away by the torrent of the bishops who thought the same as Cyprian, not indeed so as to pronounce all baptism conferred by heretics invalid, but so as at least to assert that those who had been validly baptized by heretics could or could not be rebaptized according to the custom of each church. Hence this error of the Saint, inasmuch as it was not admitted without weighty reason, will easily find excuse with any fair judge of things.

[114] "But," someone will say further, "Dionysius not only asserted that the rebaptism of those who had been validly baptized by heretics was lawful, [and also, there existing a doubt besides whether he judged that the defect of baptism] but also, an error which surely no one would excuse, would have the baptism of the Pepuzenes or Montanists, though conferred without the due form, held as valid, on the testimony of St. Basil; whence it seems to follow that he judged baptism conferred by any heretics whatever and in any manner whatever to be valid. Moreover (see again § XI of the Commentary), he thought, as it appears, that the defect of baptism could be supplied through holy Communion, which is also surely erroneous beyond all doubt; so that Dionysius admitted concerning baptism no slight mistake only, such as would easily find excuse." Thus, as I have already hinted, it can be argued further against Dionysius. But I answer that it can not undeservedly, as you will easily understand from the praised § XI of the Commentary, be called in doubt whether Dionysius really judged that the defect of baptism could be supplied through holy Communion. For although (see the Saint's words recited in the Commentary at number 114), not daring to rebaptize that man, long since admitted into the Church and to the participation of the Sacraments, who, since he thought he had been baptized invalidly, with a baptism only impious and full of blasphemy, had asked to be granted true and pure baptism, he answered that his long-continued communion was sufficient for this, the Saint can perhaps be understood as having meant that long-continued communion was sufficient not indeed as the cause by which that man had been purged from original sin, but only as a sure indication that, baptism having been validly conferred, he had been purged from original sin.

[115] For the Saint, as it appears, held it as scarcely credible could be supplied through holy communion, that a man who for a very long time, having abjured heresy, had been frequently admitted into the Church and to holy communion, had never before been initiated with a valid baptism. This seems to be gathered from the fact that the Saint, in the place cited above in Eusebius, where he answered the man who had asked to be rebaptized that long-continued communion was sufficient for this, presently subjoins: "For one who has often heard the thanksgiving and with the rest has answered Amen; who has stood at the holy Table and stretched out his hands to receive the holy food; who has received it and been a partaker for a very long time of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, him I would not dare to renew afresh." If these words, as will perhaps seem to some, do not confirm the explanation of Dionysius just applied, and this seems accommodated to the schools rather than to historical truth, I will indeed bring forward nothing further by which to prove the same explanation; but I then contend that it cannot be held as certain and undoubted that Dionysius judged that the defect of baptism was supplied by long-continued communion. And so indeed I have taught what I think should be determined about the one error concerning baptism of which Dionysius is accused. As regards now that which consists in the approval of the baptism of the Pepuzenes or Montanists, and which gives a handle for suspecting that Dionysius held as valid any baptism whatever, conferred by anyone whatever and in any manner whatever, I answer that at least this latter part of the error charged against Dionysius is by no means certain and undoubted, or, what is the same, that it is by no means ascertained and established that any baptism whatever, conferred by any heretics whatever and in any manner whatever, was held as valid by Dionysius.

[116] and held every baptism conferred in any manner as valid, Certainly to the Benedictines who prepared the more recent edition of the Works of Basil of the year 1730 it by no means appeared certain and undoubted. For on the first passage of Basil transcribed here at number 110 they observe thus: "Although Basil testifies that the baptism of the Pepuzenes was not rejected by Dionysius, yet he does not seem to have judged that that great Man used the same indulgence towards other heretics. For he wonders why he dealt so liberally with the Pepuzenes, inasmuch as they were heretics; which would certainly not have seemed strange to him if he had believed that even the Marcionites and Valentinians themselves were received by him without baptism. For this reason Basil's opinion, namely concerning the baptism of heretics approved by Dionysius, is to be taken somewhat more restrictedly than it is commonly taken. His testimony about the Pepuzenes received without baptism stands firm, and from this testimony this too can be gathered, that any baptism, provided the legitimate rite was not lacking, was held as ratified by Dionysius. But Basil himself speaks of the Pepuzenes alone, and in this very canon declares the mistake of the Great Dionysius (for so he calls it) to be manifest and set before the eyes in this, that he departed from the rule sanctioned by the ancient canons, that heretics should be received in one way and schismatics in another. He believed, therefore, that that celebrated rule was observed by Dionysius in the case of other heresies." So the praised Benedictines, indicating very openly indeed that they are of the opinion that not every baptism, conferred by any heretics whatever and in any manner whatever, was held as valid by Dionysius.

[117] What the Benedictines here signify that they hold, that very thing I too, although the reasons they bring forward do not prove the matter, [he does not lack excuse in the other, graver error, admitted concerning the baptism of the Pepuzenes,] hold as most probable. For who would bring himself to think that Dionysius, a man excelling, by the reckoning of almost all the learned, no less in learning than in piety, and the distinguished glory and ornament of his age, thought so ridiculously about the first and most necessary Sacrament? Dionysius did indeed hold as valid the baptism of the Pepuzenes, which nevertheless, as Basil testifies in the words recited above, had no character of baptism at all, inasmuch as, he says, it was conferred in the name of the Father and the Son and Montanus or Priscilla. But if the Benedictines rightly annotate on the latter passage of Basil transcribed here above, the Pepuzenes in baptizing did not call upon Montanus or Priscilla by name, but only understood Montanus or Priscilla by the Holy Spirit, in whose name, as also in that of the Father and the Son, they baptized; so that Dionysius was not wholly without reason for holding the baptism of the Pepuzenes as valid, inasmuch as it was conferred at least outwardly with the due form, and consequently the error into which he fell by approving that baptism likewise deserves to be excused. However that may be, we do indeed confess that Dionysius, however worthy of excuse, erred vehemently both in approving the baptism of the Pepuzenes and in admitting as lawful the rebaptism of those who, having been validly baptized by heretics, come to the Church.

[118] For it does not please me here, by philosophizing too subtly, [and that very thing in some cruder formulas of the Saint for speaking of the Holy Trinity,] or rather, to say what the thing is, by ineptly quibbling, to vouch for the holy Man as immune from the manifest errors into which he fell. For so I should seem not to have been zealous for historical truth, but rather to have indulged affection. Led by this reason, I have already before also candidly confessed that Dionysius most certainly erred both in keeping from holy Communion women suffering what is customary to their sex, and in denying the Apocalypse to John the Apostle; although meanwhile I at the same time showed, as I have done here too, that the holy Man did not err without a reason for which he is to be excused. Nay, out of zeal for the truth I have preferred, with Athanasius, to ascribe to the Saint himself the things apparently erroneous which Dionysius wrote in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor, rather than, with Rufinus, to the Arians, as having corrupted that letter. "When Dionysius," says Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, in the defence of the three chapters of the council of Chalcedon, page 442, "had once taught that the Son of God was a thing made, and not proper by nature, but foreign to the essence of the Father, and that the same Son was not before he was made, and other similar things which are contained in the same Work, Athanasius, a genuine pattern and example of Catholic doctrine and virtue, constantly took them up, and, though harsh to our ears and difficult to excuse, did not shrink from defending them." Athanasius, as we taught in the Commentary, admitted indeed that Dionysius in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor had asserted that the Son of God was a thing made and foreign to the Father according to substance, which, in the more obvious sense, could seem, and in fact was, erroneous; but he showed that the Saint had not uttered these things with the mind the Arians wished, and that he thought quite orthodoxly, for more than one reason. Adhering, therefore, to this manner of proceeding of Athanasius, I admitted indeed in the Commentary that Dionysius spoke somewhat crudely of the Son of God in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor; but I proved at the same time invincibly, as I think, from the later writings which he published for the sake of clearing himself, that he thought quite orthodoxly.

[119] as Baronius, after the example of Athanasius, in his (Notes) on the Martyrology This same way not a few learned men after Athanasius have entered upon. Among these is also to be counted the most learned Cardinal Baronius, whose words, therefore, since they also conduce not a little to excusing Dionysius's manner of writing about the second Person of the Holy Trinity, I transcribe here as in a manner a complement of what I discoursed to the same end in the Commentary. Accordingly, on the XVII day of November, in his Notes on the Roman Martyrology, he writes thus about our Saint: "About the same Dionysius a doubt might arise for someone, since St. Augustine" (or rather Gennadius, presbyter of Marseilles, as now seems to the learned) "in the book On Catholic Dogma, chapter 3, calls him the Fountain of the Arians, and St. Basil, to Maximus the philosopher, letter 41, says this of him to the same effect: 'This is our opinion of him: we do not praise all things of this Man; there are some which we even altogether condemn. He himself almost (so far as is clear to us) was the first to furnish men with the seeds of this impiety of the Ariomania which now clamours everywhere.' Thus Basil; who at last, excusing him, subjoins this: 'But I do not think the cause of this is malice of mind, but that he greatly desires to struggle against Sabellius. I am accustomed, therefore, to esteem him like some planter who, intending to correct the bent of a young plant, so immoderately

twists it back that it strays from the middle and draws the branch to the opposite side.' Thus he.

[120] in his Annotations on the Roman (Martyrology) also rightly contends, "To the same effect St. Athanasius, dealing against the Arians, wrote an apologetic letter for Dionysius; and the same, in the letter On the synod of Nicaea against the decrees of the Arians, also adds that the same Dionysius, having been called to judgment on that matter before Dionysius, then Roman Pontiff, wrote to him an excellent apology, in which he showed himself immune and free from any heresy. This Basil too (testifies), to Amphilochius, On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29. Jerome also, On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Dionysius, testifies that he wrote to the aforesaid Roman Pontiff one letter and four books. Did I not fear to exceed the measure of a note, I would subjoin examples of the same kind of very many noble and ancient theologians who, while they tried to refute some heresy, bending their reasons too strongly towards the opposite side, seemed to decline from the rightness of the pure faith, although the same were always most vigorous champions of the Catholic faith. I will bring forward only one example, not fetched from afar and similar to this, of that Great Gregory the Wonderworker, of whom this day treats. For just as Dionysius, labouring against Sabellius, seemed to have furnished arms to the Arians, so he too, dealing against the gentiles and trying to demonstrate to them that there are not several Gods, and that all Christians by no means worship three Gods but only one, seemed to some to have established only one Person in the Divinity, and thus to have prepared poison for Sabellius: which St. Basil accurately notes and excuses, writing to the Neocaesareans, letter 64; so that it is truly strange that he did not use the same kindness towards Dionysius of Alexandria."

[121] [and that it likewise holds good for all his errors in general is sufficiently clear from what has been argued.] However that may be, both what is brought forward by Baronius in the words already transcribed and what we brought forward in the Commentary ought to suffice for Dionysius to find easy excuse with all fair judges of things in all those things concerning the Holy Trinity which he seemed to teach erroneously in his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor. As regards, however, in general the errors which the Saint not only seemed to admit but in fact admitted, what I have discoursed in this present chapter and elsewhere in the Commentary and in this Appendix shows more than sufficiently that he likewise deserves to be excused in all of them. For the rest, besides the Works which I have already enumerated, both in the Commentary and in this Appendix, as prepared by Dionysius, no more remain to be enumerated by name or in particular; nor, however, should anyone on that account think that no Works were composed by Dionysius besides those which I have mentioned in the course of this Treatise on Dionysius. For Eusebius, in almost every place in which he enumerates some letters or little Works produced by Dionysius, adds that many others besides were composed by the Saint. Thus, to omit the other places in which he does so, in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 46, after enumerating very many letters which the Saint wrote, he presently adds: "He also wrote very many other letters to various persons, from which whoever are studious lovers of his Works (and there are still very many) can derive manifold benefit." Dionysius therefore wrote, besides those which I have enumerated, very many other letters besides, from which, since, as Eusebius says, manifold benefit could be derived, it is truly to be deplored that they have perished.