{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36539/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36539","id":"gutenberg_36539","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36539","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600 -- Sources"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Stephen Hutcheson, Dave Morgan and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                  TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE\n                                SERIES I\n                              GREEK TEXTS\n\n                            ST. DIONYSIUS OF\n                               ALEXANDRIA\n\n                        TRANSLATION OF CHRISTIAN\n                          LITERATURE. SERIES I\n                              GREEK TEXTS\n\n\n\n\n                             ST. DIONYSIUS\n                             OF ALEXANDRIA\n                         LETTERS AND TREATISES\n\n\n                     _By_ CHARLES LETT FELTOE, D.D.\n\n                         SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING\n                      CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. London\n                    The Macmillan Company. New York\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nNot long after my edition of this Father's writings appeared in the\n_Cambridge Patristic Texts_ (1904), I was invited to translate the\nLetters and some of the other more certainly genuine fragments that\nremain into English for the present series; but it is not until now that\nI have been able to accomplish the task I then undertook. Since then,\nthough chiefly occupied in other researches, I have naturally acquired a\nmore extensive and accurate knowledge of St. Dionysius and his times,\nsome of the results of which will be found in this volume. Nevertheless,\nI was bound to incorporate a considerable amount of the information and\nconclusions arrived at in the former work, and wish to express my\nacknowledgments to the Syndics of the University Press for leave to do\nso, as well as to those again whose names I mentioned as having assisted\nme before.\n\nIn the present book Dr. A. J. Mason was kind enough to advise me over the\nchoice of extracts from the two treatises, _On Nature_ and _Refutation\nand Defence_, and on one or two minor points, while a friend and\nneighbour (the Rev. L. Patterson) read through the whole of the MS.\nbefore it went to the printer and gave me the benefit of a fresh mind\nupon a number of small details of style and fact, for which I sincerely\nthank him.\n\n                                                           C. L. Feltoe.\n\n  _Ripple by Dover_\n    _March 1918._\n\n\n\n\n                                    CONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                     PAGE\n  PREFACE                                                               V\n  INTRODUCTION                                                          9\n  LETTERS                                                              35\n  TO BASILIDES                                                         76\n  \"ON THE PROMISES\"                                                    82\n  \"ON NATURE\"                                                          91\n  \"REFUTATION AND DEFENCE\"                                            101\n  ADDITIONAL NOTE                                                     108\n  INDEX                                                               109\n\n\n\n\n                              INTRODUCTION\n\n\n1. None of the many influential occupants of the see of Alexandria and of\nthe many distinguished heads of the Catechetical School in that city seem\nto have been held in higher respect by the ancients than Dionysius. By\ncommon consent he is styled \"the Great,\" while Athanasius, one of his\nmost famous-successors as Bishop, calls him \"Teacher of the Church\nuniversal,\" and Basil (of C\u00e6sarea) refers to him as \"a person of\ncanonical authority\" ({kanonikos}). He took a prominent and important\npart in all the leading movements and controversies of the day, and his\nopinions always carried great weight, especially in Eastern Christendom.\nHis writings are freely referred to and quoted, not only by Eusebius the\nhistorian,[1] but also by Athanasius, Basil and John of Damascus amongst\nothers. And what we gather of his personal story from his letters and\nvarious fragments embodied in the works of others--and very little, if\nanything else, for certain has come down to us--undoubtedly leaves the\nimpression that the verdict of the ancient world is correct.\n\n\n                      His Family and Earlier Life\n\n2. The references to his family and early years are extremely scanty and\nvague. In the _Chronicon Orientale_, p. 94, he is stated to have been a\n_Sabaita_ and sprung from \"the chiefs and nobles of that race\": and\nseveral writers speak as if he had been a rhetorician before his\nconversion (as Cyprian of Carthage had been). The exact meaning of the\nterm \"Sabaita\" above is doubtful. Strictly used, it should mean a member\nof the Sabaite convent near Jerusalem, and the _Chronicon_ may be\nclaiming Dionysius as that, though, of course, without any ground for the\nclaim. If it is equivalent, however, to \"Sab\u00e6an\" here, it implies an Arab\ndescent for him, which is hardly probable, as he seems always to consider\nhimself connected by education and residence, if not by birth, with the\ncity-folk of Alexandria, whom he distinguishes from the Coptic\ninhabitants of Egypt ({Aigyptioi}); so that it would be rather surprising\nto find that his family came from the remoter parts of Arabia, where the\nSab\u00e6ans dwelt. The other tradition of his having been a rhetorician may\nbe due to some confusion between our Dionysius and a much later\nAlexandrian writer of the same name, who edited the works of the\nAreopagite with notes and wrote other treatises. On the other hand,\nDionysius's literary style is such that it might very well have been\nformed by the study and practice of rhetoric, while he has been thought\nhimself to corroborate the statement of the _Chronicon Orientale_, as to\nthe high position of his family, in his reply to Germanus (p. 49), where\nhe refers to the \"losses of dignities\" which he has suffered for the\nFaith.\n\n3. He was probably a priest, and not less than thirty, when he became\nhead of the Catechetical School in 231, and in 264 he excused himself\nfrom attendance at the Council of Antioch on the ground of age and\ninfirmity; and so it is a safe inference that he was born about or before\n200, being thus nearly of an age with Cyprian of Carthage, and only ten\nor fifteen years younger than Origen, his master.\n\n\n                             His Conversion\n\n4. The _Chronicon Orientale_ assigns the reading of St. Paul's letters as\nthe cause of his conversion to Christianity, and proceeds to state how,\nafter their perusal, he presented himself for baptism to Demetrius, then\nBishop of Alexandria, who admitted him in due course. Whether this was\nactually the cause of his conversion or not, we know from what he has\nhimself told us in his letter to Philemon (p. 56), that both before and\nafter baptism he was a diligent student of all that was written for and\nagainst Christianity.\n\n\n                         Was He Married or Not?\n\n5. Whether, in accordance with the common practice of the Eastern Church\nat that time, Dionysius was married or not, is a moot point. He addressed\nhis treatise {peri Physe\u00f4s} to one Timotheus {ho pais}, and we read of\n{hoi paides} (of whom Timotheus was one) as accompanying him in his\nflight (p. 44). One would naturally infer from this that he was then a\nwidower (his wife not being mentioned), and that these were his sons; but\nthey may have been his pupils, on the supposition that he was still\nCatechete as well as Bishop, or, which is less likely, his servants.[2]\n\n\n               He becomes Head of the Catechetical School\n\n6. When Demetrius died in 231, Heraclas, who for some years had been\nassociated with Origen at the Catechetical School and had just been left\nin charge of it by him on his final retirement that year from Alexandria,\nwas elected Bishop, while Dionysius, who had himself been a pupil of\nOrigen there, was appointed to fill the vacancy he created. It is\npossible that the treatise {peri Physe\u00f4s}, extracts from which are given\nbelow (on pp. 91 ff.), was composed while Dionysius held this important\npost, and that a commentary on _Ecclesiastes_, some genuine fragments of\nwhich probably remain, belongs to the same period. The former of these is\nmuch the more valuable work, for in it for the first time a Christian\nundertook systematically to refute the atomistic theories of Epicurus and\nhis followers.\n\n\n                    He becomes Bishop of Alexandria\n\n7. Sixteen years later, in 247, upon the death of Heraclas, Dionysius\nsucceeded to the bishopric as the fourteenth occupant of the see,\npossibly, as has already been suggested, without at once resigning his\npost at the School. Philip the Arabian (of Bostra) had then been Emperor\nfor three years, a position he was destined to retain for two years\nlonger. Like Alexander Severus before him, he was known to favour the\nChristians, and Dionysius himself bears witness to the comparative\nmildness of his rule (p. 37). For a short time, therefore, the new Bishop\nand his flock were left in peace, though even before the death of Philip\nsigns of the coming storm appeared. In the last year of his reign\nDionysius tells Fabius, Bishop of Antioch (p. 35), that \"the prophet and\npoet of evil to this city, whoever he was,\" stirred up the populace\nagainst the Christians in Alexandria, and several persons were cruelly\nmartyred. This reign of terror lasted some time, but was interrupted in\nthe autumn of 249 by the revolution which caused the deposition and death\nof Philip, and which set Decius on the throne in his stead. The respite\nwas only too brief, for by the beginning of the new year the edict which\nDecius had issued was being actively carried into effect. The Bishops\nwere at first singled out for attack. Origen, though not one of them, was\nincluded among the earlier victims--on account, no doubt, of his\nprominence as a scholar and a teacher--being imprisoned at Tyre and\ncruelly tortured, though not actually martyred.\n\n\n                    Under the Persecution of Decius\n\n8. Decius's reversal of his predecessor's policy towards the Christians\nwas probably due to reasons of state and expediency rather than, as\nEusebius implies, to mere spite and hatred of Philip and all his ways.\nAnyhow, the severity of the Decian persecution is undoubted, and it fell\nwith great force upon the Church at Alexandria. The Prefect of Egypt,\nSabinus, lost no time in attacking Dionysius and his followers. Many\nendured tortures or death, or both. Dionysius himself, after waiting four\ndays, fled and was sought for by a secret service messenger\n(_frumentarius_, see note on p. 43) sent by Sabinus. A brief search was\nsufficient to recover him, and he was carried off with four of his\ncompanions to Taposiris. But through a strange interposition of\nProvidence (related on pp. 44 f.) he was rescued by a wedding party of\nrustic revellers and removed to a place of safety in the Libyan Desert,\nwhere he appears to have been left unmolested, with two of his four\ncompanions (see pp. 64 ff.), till the persecution ceased and he was able\nto return to the city. In after days Dionysius's action in fleeing on\nthis occasion was violently attacked by a certain Bishop Germanus, who\nwas perhaps one of his suffragans. Germanus boasted of his own much\nbraver conduct under persecution. Dionysius in his reply (see especially\npp. 43 and 45) maintains that it was not of his own will nor yet without\ndivine intimation that he had fled, and that he had suffered far more\nthan his critic for the Faith. Decius's rule was brought to a calamitous\nend in 251, but Gallus, who succeeded him, continued his treatment of the\nChristians for another two years, when he, too, suffered an untimely\nfate.\n\n9. For the next four years the Church of Alexandria enjoyed comparative\nrest and peace. In 253 \u00c6milianus[3] the Governor of Pannonia and Moesia,\nwho had in that spring wrested the imperial power from Gallus, was in his\nturn, after four months' rule, defeated by Valerian and his son\nGallienus, and slain by the soldiery. The new Emperors (father and son)\nleft the Christians alone during the first four years of their reign--a\nsomewhat surprising fact, when it is considered that Valerian had been\nspecially chosen to fill the office of \"Censor,\" which Decius had\nrevived. It may in some measure have been due to what Archbishop Benson\n(_Cyprian_, p. 457) calls his \"languid temperament\" as well as to his\nson's connexions with the Christians through his wife Cornelia Salonina.\n\n\n                   His Action about Heretical Baptism\n\n10. During this interval of peace, but chiefly towards the end of it,\nDionysius took part in that controversy about heretical baptism to which\nthe letters on pp. 51 ff. belong. Up till now various parts of\nChristendom had followed various customs on this matter without much\ndisputing. In Asia Minor and in Africa baptism by heretics was not\nrecognized, while in the West baptism with water in the name of the\nTrinity or of Christ was held valid by whomsoever performed. Before the\nmiddle of the third century, however, the difference of practice\ngradually became more and more a matter of controversy. In or about A.D.\n230 two synods were held one after the other at Iconium and at Synnada\n(see p. 58, _n._), which confirmed the opinion that heretical baptism was\ninvalid: and some twenty-five years later on Cyprian of Carthage convened\nseveral synods in North Africa, which arrived at the same conclusion.\nThereupon a violent quarrel arose between Cyprian and Stephen the Bishop\nof Rome; this became, perhaps, all the keener, because of the former\nalliance and co-operation between Cyprian and Stephen's predecessor,\nCornelius, in combating the Novatianist schism,[4] which had eventually\nled also to heresy over the restoration of those who had lapsed under\npersecution. Severe language was now used on both sides, and other\nleading Churchmen of the day were naturally drawn into the discussion:\namong them our Dionysius, who--after the first, at all events--with\ncharacteristic sagacity steered a middle course and advised that the\nolder spirit of toleration should be maintained, the circumstances of\ndifferent churches requiring different methods. Fragments of five letters\non this subject have come down to us, all addressed to the Church of Rome\nor rather to representative members of that Church, the first of them\nprobably written in 254 when the Novatianist schism was subsiding (see p.\n52), and the others belonging to the year 257 (see pp. 54 ff.).\n\n\n                   Under the Persecution of Valerian\n\n11. Suddenly, in the summer of that year, the Church was startled by the\nissue of an edict which revived the reign of terror and threw her into a\nstate of persecution which lasted for more than three years. This\nunexpected change of treatment is attributed by Dionysius to the\ninfluence of Macrianus, who at one time held the office of _Rationalis_\n(Treasurer or Accountant-General) to the Emperor. This man was apparently\na cripple in body, but mentally and otherwise a person of considerable\nability and force of character: but he seems to have associated himself\nin some way with the soothsayers of Egypt,[5] and to have conceived a\nviolent hatred against the Christians. Quite early in the proceedings\nwhich were instituted against them at Alexandria in consequence of the\nedict, Dionysius, with several of his clergy, was brought before\n\u00c6milianus the Prefect,[6] and after examination--chiefly as to his\nloyalty to the Emperors, which his refusal to pay them divine honours\nrendered doubtful--was banished first to a place called Cephro (probably\nnot far from Taposiris, where he had been sent before), and then\nsomewhere on the high road in the district called Colluthion. Dionysius's\nown account of the circumstances which led to and attended this second\nexile is given on pp. 46 ff., an account which is valuable, among other\nreasons, because it is largely drawn from the official memoranda of the\nPrefect's court, and because it shows how both sides did their\nineffectual best to understand each other's position.\n\n\n                          Restoration of Peace\n\n12. The persecution lasted till the autumn of 260, and was then, on the\ndisappearance of Valerian, stayed by an edict of Peace issued by his son\nGallienus, who was now left alone upon the throne. The Greek version,\nwhich Eusebius gives us, is apparently not that of the actual edict, but\nof the Emperor's letter or rescript which applied it to Egypt. It is\naddressed to Dionysius and other bishops, and runs as follows: \"I have\nordained that the benefit of my concession be enforced throughout the\nworld, to the effect that men should withdraw from (_i. e._ not interfere\nwith) your places of worship. And accordingly ye, too, may use the terms\nof my rescript, so that none may interfere with you. And this, which may\nwith authority be carried out by you, has already been granted by me some\ntime ago. And accordingly Aurelius Quirinius, who is in charge of the\nExchequer,[7] shall preserve this form now given by me.\" Instructions\nwere also issued permitting the Christians to have free access to their\ncemeteries--a privilege which was always much prized.\n\n\n                        His Return to Alexandria\n\n13. It is practically certain that Dionysius returned to Alexandria as\nsoon as Gallienus's edict came into operation there. But almost\nimmediately fresh disturbances were felt in the city, followed by one of\nthose frequent outbreaks of pestilence to which the East was always\nliable, and these hindered for a time his work of bringing the brethren\ntogether again. The disturbances are with good reason thought to have\nbeen those connected with the attempt of Macrianus to overturn the power\nof Gallienus in Egypt, though that country was so often the scene of\ntumults and civil wars for the next twelve years and more that it is\nalmost impossible to identify any particular disturbances with certainty\nduring this period.\n\n\n      The Troubles Connected with his Protest against Sabellianism\n\n14. For another five years Dionysius was spared to administer his charge\nand to benefit the Church at large with his prudent counsels. But, though\nattacks upon himself never seem to have troubled him very much, he had\nstill to endure one such attack which probably grieved him more than all\nthe rest, and the after results of which lingered on till the days of\nAthanasius and Basil in the next century. This was in connexion with the\nSabellian controversy, especially that phase of it which had recently\narisen in the Libyan Pentapolis (on the north-west coast of Cyrenaica).\nSabellius was a native of the district, and his heresy consisted in\nlaying too much stress on the unity of the Godhead and in so hopelessly\nconfounding the Three Persons in the Trinity as to imply that the Person\nof the Father was incarnate in Christ. It is in 257 that we first find\nDionysius, in a letter to Xystus II (see p. 55), calling the attention of\nthe Bishop of Rome to these views, by which time Sabellius was himself\nprobably already dead. From what he says there, it appears as if\nDionysius was unaware that these views were not of quite recent origin\nand were already rather prevalent in both East and West, whilst his words\nseem also to imply that this later phase of Sabellianism endangered the\ndignity of the Third Person as well as of the First and Second. In Libya\nthe heresy gained such a hold upon the Church that it even infected\ncertain of the Bishops, and the Son of God was no longer preached.\nDionysius, therefore, feeling his responsibility for the churches under\nhis care, became active in trying to eradicate the evil. Among a number\nof letters which he wrote on the subject, there was one (about the year\n260) in which he made use of certain expressions and illustrations with\nregard to the Son of God, which were seized hold of by some members of\nthe Church either at Alexandria or in the Pentapolis as heretical. This\nletter was apparently one of the later letters of the series, when his\nearlier overtures had failed to produce the effect he desired.\n\n15. Dionysius's critics laid a formal complaint against him before his\nnamesake (Dionysius), who had by now succeeded the martyred Xystus II as\nBishop of Rome; they accused him of having fallen into five errors\nhimself, while correcting the false views of the Sabellians.\n\nThey were as follows, as we gather them from Athan., _de sent. Dion._:--\n\n  (1) Separating the Father and the Son.\n\n  (2) Denying the eternity of the Son.\n\n  (3) Naming the Father without the Son and the Son without the Father.\n\n  (4) Virtually rejecting the term {homoousios} (of one substance) as\n  descriptive of the Son.\n\n  (5) Speaking of the Son as a creature of the Father and using\n  misleading illustrations of their relation to One Another.\n\nOne or two of these illustrations which were objected to will be found in\nthe extract translated on p. 103, and they are sufficient to give some\nidea of the rest. It may, however, be acknowledged that neither Dionysius\nhimself in his original statements and in his attempts to explain them,\nnor Athanasius, who, when Arius afterwards appealed to Dionysius in\nsupport of his opinions, put forward an elaborate defence of him, was\naltogether happy or successful.\n\n16. Upon receiving the complaint mentioned, the Bishop of Rome appears to\nhave convened a synod, which condemned the expressions complained of, and\na letter was addressed by him on the modes of correcting the heresy to\nthe Church of Alexandria. From motives of delicacy he made no actual\nmention of his Alexandrian brother-bishop in this letter, while\ncriticizing his views, though he wrote to him privately asking for an\nexplanation. A considerable portion of the public letter has been\npreserved for us by Athanasius, but it is not included in this volume,\nnor is it necessary to particularize his treatment of the question or to\nsay more than this, that, though the Roman Bishop wrote quite good Greek\nand gives no impression that he felt hampered by it in expressing his\nmeaning, yet he does naturally exhibit distinct traces of Western modes\nof thought as opposed to Eastern, and is not always quite fair in his\nrepresentation and interpretation of what Dionysius had said.\n\nDionysius's answer to his Roman brother was embodied in the treatise\ncalled _Refutation and Defence_ ({Elenchos kai Apologia}), some extracts\nfrom which (as given by Athanasius) will be found on pp. 101 ff.\n\nThe following is an indication of Dionysius's line of defence against the\nfive points raised against him, other matters which arose more\nparticularly between him and his namesake of Rome being passed over.\n\n(1) As to the charge of separating the Three Persons in the Trinity, he\ndistinctly denies it: all the language he employs and the very names he\ngives imply the opposite: \"Father\" must involve \"Son\" and \"Son\" \"Father\":\n\"Holy Spirit\" at once suggests His Source and the Channel.\n\n(2) As to the eternity of the Son, he is equally emphatic. God was always\nthe Father and therefore Christ was always the Son, just as, if the sun\nwere eternal, the daylight would also be eternal.\n\n(3) The charge of omitting the Son in speaking of the Father and vice\nversa is refuted by what is said under (1): the one name involves the\nother.\n\n(4) Dionysius's rejection or non-employment of the term {homoousios} is\nless easily disposed of. He practically acknowledges that, as it is not a\nScriptural word, he had _not_ used it, but at the same time that the\nfigures he employed suggested a similar relationship, _e. g._ the figure\nof parent and child who are of one family ({homogeneis}) or seed, root\nand plant which are of one kind ({homophy\u00ea}), and again source and\nstream, and in another place the word in the heart and the mind springing\nforth by the tongue (see p. 106): but for the unsatisfactoriness of this\ndefence the reader should consult Bethune-Baker, _Early History of\nChristian Doctrine_, chap. viii. pp. 113 ff, who points out that\nDionysius had not grasped the Western tradition of one _substantia_\n({ousia}) of Godhead existing in three Persons.\n\n(5) But the most serious misunderstanding naturally arose from Dionysius\nspeaking of the Son as {poi\u00eama} (creature), and illustrating the word by\nthe gardener with his vine and the shipwright with his boat. His defence\nis that though he had undoubtedly used such rather unsuitable figures\nsomewhat casually, he had immediately adduced several others more\nsuitable and apposite (such as those mentioned under (4) above). And he\ncomplains that not only here, but throughout, his accusers did not take\nhis utterances as a whole, but slashed his writings about and made what\nsense of them they liked, not sincerely, but with evil intent. He tries\nfurther to explain that in his context {poiein} (make) was equivalent to\n{gennan} (beget), as of a Father, not a Creator, which he maintains is\nlegitimate, but the defence is not very convincing all the same.\n\nSo far as we can now judge, however, his arguments seem to have satisfied\nhis critics at the time, and were certainly held in high repute by the\nancient Churches, for they are quoted or referred to not only by\nAthanasius, as has been stated, but also by Eusebius, by Basil of C\u00e6sarea\n(who is, however, much more temperate in his support), and by Jerome and\nRufinus.\n\n\n                         Dionysius's Last Days\n\n17. It is evident that, in spite of this controversy, his great\nreputation in the eyes of the Church was maintained to the end: for when\nthe Council of Antioch was being summoned to deal with the troubles\nconnected with the heresies of Paul of Samosata, who held views somewhat\nsimilar to those of Sabellius, Dionysius was specially invited to attend.\nAs was said above on p. 10, he excused himself from attendance on the\nground of old age and infirmity, but he sent a letter in reply to the\ninvitation which contained his views on the matter, and these were\nunfavourable to the heretic. In 265, before the Council had finished its\nsessions, he passed to his well-earned rest.\n\n\n                          Dionysius as Author\n\n18. From what has already been said, it will be gathered that Dionysius\nwas a person of remarkable versatility, and at the same time unusually\nfree from those snares of the versatile man, shallowness and inaccuracy.\nThe critical remarks on the Revelation of S. John the Divine from his\ntreatise _On the Promises_ ({peri Epangeli\u00f4n}), which are given in full\n(from Eusebius) on pp. 82 ff., have received the most respectful\nconsideration from such authorities as Bishop Westcott and Dr. Swete and\nare well worth reading, while some of the expositions of Biblical\npassages attributed to him are probably genuine and by no means destitute\nof merit, though none of them are printed in this volume.\n\n\n                        As Christian Philosopher\n\n19. The long extracts which remain from his book _On Nature_ ({peri\nPhyse\u00f4s}), directed against the Epicureans, show him to have possessed on\nthe whole a clear grasp of their tenets, together with much genuine\nhumour and entire absence of bitterness of spirit in criticizing them.\n\nThe extracts given by Eusebius appear to be fairly continuous throughout:\nthey deal (1) with the atomistic portion of the Epicurean philosophy, and\n(2) with the more strictly \"theological\" portion of it, the references to\nthe hedonistic doctrine being only slight and passing.\n\nDionysius begins by remarking that of the various hypotheses which have\nbeen started as to the origin of the universe, one of the least\nsatisfactory is that of Epicurus, viz. that it is the result of a chance\nconcourse of an infinite number of atoms, as they rush through space.\n\nHe then proceeds to show by a series of illustrations taken from human\nworkmanship that mere chance could never produce the wonderful results\nthat we see all around us. So, too, from the study of the heavens the\nsame inference must be drawn.\n\nHis next point appears to be that the difference in durability, which\nEpicurus postulates for the various bodies produced by atoms, goes to\nupset his theory. If some products (_e. g._ the gods) are eternal and\nsome are short-lived, what determines the difference? Some of the\nsenseless atoms themselves must be gifted with powers of directing,\narranging and ruling. But if it is mere chance, then Epicurus asks us,\nwho study the order and the phenomena of earth and heaven, to believe the\nimpossible.\n\nThe same conclusion is arrived at by the study of man, whose mere body is\na machine so marvellous that some have emerged from the study of it with\na belief that {Physis} herself is a deity. The higher powers, too, of\nman, his mind and reason and skill, all point in the opposite direction\nto Epicurus's solution of the problem. It cannot, surely, be the atoms\nrather than the Muses which are responsible for the arts and sciences.\n\nThe half-humorous allusion to these heaven-born personages of heathen\nmythology leads Dionysius to attack the Epicurean theory of the gods.\nAccording to Epicurus, the gods in no way concern themselves with mundane\nmatters, but spend a serene existence without labour or exertion of any\nkind. But such an existence, says Dionysius, is so repugnant to the very\nidea and instinct of man that it must be absolutely false with regard to\ndivine beings.\n\nAt this point occurs a short passage in which the inconsistency of\nDemocritus, from whom Epicurus had confessedly borrowed his physics,\n_mutatis mutandis_, is criticized, though it has only a general bearing\nupon the line of argument. Democritus, he says, who professed that he\nwould have given the world in exchange for the discovery of one good\ncause ({aitiologia}), yet in putting forward his ideas of Chance as a\ncause could not have been more absurd: he sets up {Tych\u00ea} as the\nsovereign cause of the Universe, and yet banishes her as a power from the\nlife of men. The truth is that, while practical men and even philosophers\nfind their highest pleasure in benefiting others, by this theory the gods\nare to be kept from any share in such pleasure.\n\nOne other inconsistency in the Epicurean writings Dionysius next deals\nwith, and that is Epicurus's own constant use of oaths and adjurations,\nin which the names of those very beings occur whose influence upon men's\naffairs he so depreciates. This is, in Dionysius's opinion, due to his\nfear of being put to death by the state for atheism, as Socrates had\nbeen: though he is probably doing Epicurus a wrong.\n\nThe extracts end with a repetition of the appeal to the wonders of the\nsky and of the earth as a conclusive contradiction of Epicurus's\nviews.[8]\n\nA selection from these interesting portions of a not unimportant work for\nits time will be found on pp. 91 ff.\n\n\n                General Characteristics of his Writings\n\n20. The letter to Basilides on several points of ecclesiastical order\n(the larger portion of which is given on pp. 76 ff.) is a model of what\nsuch episcopal utterances should be: it definitely states which is the\nhighest and best course, but leaves the decision to the individual\nconscience. But it is to the general correspondence (pp. 35 ff.) that the\nbulk of English readers will probably turn, and that deals with a large\nvariety of subjects: in some cases theological matters like Novatianism\nand the baptism of heretics are discussed; in others there are\ndescriptions of the martyrdoms of his time at Alexandria and his own\npersonal experiences under persecution, all told with a vividness and a\nsobriety eminently characteristic of the man: others are addressed to\npersons or districts in his province, especially at Eastertide, treating\nof matters of local and temporary importance, while one or two incidents\nwhich he records are of much value as illustrating church customs and\nmanners of the period (_e. g._ the case of Sarapion on p. 42, prayers for\nthe Emperors on p. 47, matters connected with the celebration of Holy\nBaptism and Holy Communion on p. 59).\n\nIn his controversy with the Sabellians, as we have already remarked, some\nof the expressions and figures employed were insufficiently guarded or\nexplained and so laid Dionysius open to criticism: but we must remember\nhow much more easy it is for us, who have the benefit of subsequent\nhistory and experience, to see this and to correct it, than it was for\nhim and for his contemporaries to grope their way, as they slowly but\nsurely did, under the Divine guidance to a fuller knowledge and a more\naccurate statement of the truth.\n\n21. It is further to be noticed how very seldom, if ever, Dionysius\noffends against the principles of good taste either when attacking\nopponents, or when describing horrors, or when dealing with the mysteries\nof the Faith. In controversy he always displays an admirable moderation\nand sweetness of tone, which is the more remarkable because his\nconvictions were strong and definite. This is especially to be observed\nin his treatment of Novatianus the intruder (see p. 50), in his criticism\nof the deceased Nepos of Arsenoe (see p. 82), and to a less extent in his\ndefence of himself against the charges of Germanus (see p. 43). Even when\nhe has to speak of one whom he believes to have done him wrong, like the\nPrefect \u00c6milianus (p. 48), or of one whom his soul abhors like Macrianus\n(p. 68), his language is mild in comparison with that of many in similar\ncircumstances. So, too, when he takes upon himself to describe the\ntortures and deaths of the martyrs (pp. 35 f.), or the ravages of\npestilence (p. 74), he indulges in but few ghastly or revolting details,\nthough his narrative is always lively and thrilling. And once more when\nhe deals with such a subject as the Eternal Sonship of our Lord, or, if\nthe passage (not here given) be authentic, His Death and Passion, the\nsame good taste and restraint of language is to be observed.\n\n22. Dionysius's literary style is excellent for the age in which he\nlived, and so far confirms the truth of the statement that he had been a\nmaster of rhetoric before his conversion. He gives evidence of having\nread widely and to good purpose both in classical and in religious\nliterature. As to the former, he actually quotes from or refers to Homer,\nHesiod, Thucydides, Aristotle, and Democritus: but his language is really\nsaturated with classical uses, and a large number of the words and\nphrases which he employs recall the best writers of antiquity. His\ncompositions exhibit signs of much care in production, notably the\ntreatise _On Nature_ ({peri Physe\u00f4s}) and the two Easter letters, to the\nAlexandrians and to Hierax (pp. 70 and 73). Here, and to a somewhat less\ndegree in the letter to Hermammon (pp. 65 ff.), he writes in a more\nrhetorical and elaborate manner than in most of the other fragments which\nare extant, but even in these passages he is seldom fantastic, or\nstilted, or obscure; whilst in pure narrative or simple description (_e.\ng._ in the letters which record his own or others' sufferings and in the\ntreatise _On the Promises_ ({peri Epangeli\u00f4n})), his language could\nhardly be more unaffected or better chosen.\n\n\n                 Dionysius as Interpreter of Scripture\n\n23. To what extent did Dionysius accept the principles and methods of\nOrigen, especially in the matter of Biblical criticism and\ninterpretation? The evidence, such as it is, is rather doubtful and\nconflicting. It is somewhat ominous that after the death of Bishop\nDemetrius, whose denunciations had caused the master's removal from\nAlexandria and his retirement to C\u00e6sarea, we hear of no effort on the\npart of Dionysius or of any other pupil to obtain his recall. This\ncertainly suggests that, great as their regard and respect for him as a\nman and a scholar may have been, they either felt themselves powerless to\nreinstate him, or else considered his views and methods of advocating\nthem detrimental to the welfare of the Church at large. On the other\nhand, it is pleasing to remember that Dionysius wrote an epistle to his\nold teacher on the subject of martyrdom, which we may presume was\ndesigned to comfort him during his imprisonment at Tyre. We learn, too,\non somewhat late authority that after Origen's death Dionysius wrote a\nletter to Theotecnus, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, extolling his master's virtues.\nThe chief methodical comments on the Bible, of the authenticity of which\nwe may be certain, are those contained in the fragments of the treatise\n_On the Promises_ ({peri Epangeli\u00f4n}), reproduced on pp. 82 ff. This was\na direct reply to the _Refutation of Allegorists_ ({Elenchos\nAll\u00eagorist\u00f4n}), in which Nepos of Arsenoe had thought to support his\ngrossly materialistic views of the Millennium by the Revelation of S.\nJohn the Divine. As the title suggests, this work had, no doubt, attacked\nOrigen's fondness for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and\nespecially on the subject of the Millennium, and therefore we may with\nsome amount of certainty infer that Dionysius in his refutation of Nepos\nwould accept Origen's methods as a commentator. But the extracts\npreserved by Eusebius deal almost wholly with the authorship and textual\ncriticism, and so give no proper clue as to his method of interpreting\nthe subject-matter of the book.\n\nIn the letter to Basilides (pp. 76 ff.) the requirements of the case do\nnot call for a style of interpretation which would bring out either a\ncorrespondence or a disagreement with Origen's methods, except so far as\nit is marked by the frank and free exercise of critical judgment. The\ncommentary on the _Beginning of Ecclesiastes_, if it is, as seems likely,\nin part the work of Dionysius, is not inconsistent in style of treatment\nwith a general acceptance of his master's position. Procopius of Gaza,\nhowever, ranks him among the opponents of the allegorical school of\ninterpreters, stating that it was in this very work that Dionysius\nattacked his master, and a short extract which has been assigned to it by\nPitra (_Spic. Solesm._, i, 17) is distinctly less allegorical in\ntreatment than the rest: it runs as follows--\n\n\"On Eccles. iv. 9, 10: 'Two are better than one,' etc. As we understand\nthis literally, we do not admit those who accept the interpretation of\nthe statements as referring to the soul and the body; for it is by no\nmeans justified, seeing that the soul has the entire control over the\nruling and governing both of itself and of the body, whereas the body is\nthe bondman of the soul, subservient and enthralled to it in all its\ndecisions. If, then, the soul be inclined to what is mean and evil, and\nbecome careless of better thoughts and considerations, the body is unable\nto restore it and lead it back to higher things: for that is not natural\nto it.\"\n\nThere is also another short extract (on Gen. ii. 8, 9[9]) attributed to\nour author, which is non-allegorical in its treatment. The evidence\ntherefore is inconclusive on this point: for though Jerome also mentions\nDionysius as a commentator on the Bible three times in his letters, he\nthrows no further light on the question.[10]\n\nOn the subject of Inspiration we have no ground for thinking that\nDionysius took up an independent position.[11] He introduces his Biblical\nquotation with the phrases current amongst early Christian writers.\n\nThe general impression therefore left upon the reader is that Dionysius\nreverted to the more sober methods of interpreting Scripture that\nprevailed throughout the Church of his day as a whole, though he\napproached his master's theories in his usual sympathetic spirit and\navailed himself of much that was valuable in them.\n\n\n                    His Place in the Church Kalendar\n\n24. We hear of a Church dedicated to S. Denys in Alexandria at the\nbeginning of the fourth century, which was destroyed by fire in a tumult\nin the time of Athanasius. October 3 and November 17 are the two most\nusual dates for his Commemoration in the Kalendar, the former date more\nespecially in the East, where he is honoured as \"a holy martyr.\"[12]\n\n\n                           Concluding Remarks\n\n25. The foregoing sketch is sufficient to show that, as a man of action\nand a ruler of the Church, Dionysius's personality is no less striking\nthan as a student, a writer and a thinker. He was clearly a strong yet\nconciliatory administrator of his province as Bishop of Alexandria, just\nas he had been a competent and successful teacher and director of sacred\nstudies as head of the Catechetical Schools--one who in each capacity\ncarried on and maintained the great traditions which he inherited from S.\nMark and his successors, from Pant\u00e6nus, Clement and Origen. And not only\nat home and within his own jurisdiction, as we have seen, did he worthily\n\"magnify his office\" and \"make full proof of his ministry\"; for he made\nhis influence for good felt throughout Christendom. Bishops and clergy\nfrom all parts naturally turned to him in their difficulties for advice\nand guidance; and it is impossible not to feel that his wonderful breadth\nof judgment and his love of conciliation were of the greatest value to\nthe Church of the third century, and will remain a model for imitation to\neach succeeding age. Men will always be tempted, as they were in that\ncentury, to speak strongly and to act vehemently where their spiritual\nbeliefs are involved, and we may pray that God will never fail to raise\nup amongst the rulers of His Church men of the type of S. Denys the Great\nof Alexandria.\n\n\n                              Bibliography\n\n26. The first attempt at making a full collection of our author's remains\nwas undertaken by Simon de Magistris, whose edition was published at Rome\nin 1796. Routh (_Reliqui\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6_, tom. iii. and iv.; Oxford, 1846) and\nMigne (_Patr. Gr\u00e6c._ tom. x.) published considerable portions with Latin\nnotes, while Gallandius (_Bibliotheca vett. patrum_, app. to vol. xiv.),\nPitra, Mai and (more recently) Holl in vol. v. of _Texte und\nUntersuchungen_ (_neue Folge_) have printed a number of fragments from\nvarious sources and of very varying degrees of probable authenticity.\n\nThe earliest list of Dionysius's literary productions, except the\nscattered references to be found in the _Ecclesiastical History_ of\nEusebius, is that of Jerome (_de viris illustribus_, 69), which more or\nless tallies with what we gather from Eusebius. The student will,\nhowever, find a complete modern list of them, together with other\nvaluable matter, in Harnack, _Altchrist. Lit._, vol. i. pp. 409-27, and\nin Bardenhewer, _Altkirch. Lit._, vol. ii. pp. 167-91: the account in\nKr\u00fcger, _Early Christian Literature_ (Eng. Trans.) is much shorter.\nSeveral compositions mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome are only known to\nus by name, unless some of the short extracts attributed to Dionysius\ncome from one or other of them, and the contents of them are almost\nwholly matter for conjecture. The most important of these is perhaps the\n{epistol\u00ea diakonik\u00ea dia Hippolytou} (Eus., _H. E._ vi. 45), because of\nthe various theories which have been put forward about it. Dom Morin\n(_Revue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine_, xvii., 1900), for instance, suggested that\nRufinus's translation of the doubtful epithet ({diakonik\u00ea}) being _de\nministeriis_, it was none other than the _Canons of Hippolytus_, and that\nthe Canons were afterwards attributed to the church-writer, Hippolytus,\nthrough a mistaken identification of the unknown bearer of Dionysius's\nmissive with the well-known author; but the theory has not met with much\nacceptance since, and the discussion has of late died down, quite\ndifferent views being now held about the Canons of Hippolytus.\n\nIt may also be mentioned that several fragments in Syriac and in Armenian\nare attributed to Dionysius, but only three of these, in the former\nlanguage, appear to be genuine: one is a translation of the letter to\nNovatian (p. 50), and the two others are, whether rightly or wrongly,\nthought to be part of the Letter to Stephanus on Baptism, and will be\nfound as [S][S] 2 and 3 of it on pp. 53 ff.\n\nThe article on Dionysius in Smith's _Dictionary of Christian Biography_\nis by Dr. Westcott, and, though not very full, is, it is needless to say,\nworthy of being consulted.\n\nThree German books on our author will also be found useful, though not\nvery recent: viz. F\u00f6rster, _de doctrin. et sententiis Dionysii_,\nBerolini, 1865; Dittrich, _Dionysius der Grosse_, Freiburg, i.B., 1867;\nand Roch, _Dionysius der Grosse \u00fcber die Natur_, Leipzig, 1882. Of these\nthe second is the most important for the general student.\n\nDr. Salmond produced a serviceable translation of the fragments in 1871\n(T. & T. Clark's series, Edinburgh), and since then we have had Dr.\nGifford's (in his scholarly edition of Eus., _Pr\u00e6par. Evang._, Oxford,\n1903), of such as there appear.\n\nFor the general history of the period much valuable help will be found in\nArchbishop Benson's _Cyprian_, London, 1897; P. Allard, _Histoire des\nPers\u00e9cutions_, vols. ii. and iii., Paris, 1886, and Aub\u00e9, _L'Eglise et\nl'Etat dans la 2de moiti\u00e9 du 3me Si\u00e8cle_.\n\nA full collection of all the genuine and doubtful extracts appeared in\nthe series of _Cambridge Patristic Texts_, with introductions and notes\nby the present editor, in 1904.\n\n\n\n\n                                LETTERS\n\n\n                      To Fabian, Bishop of Antioch\n                   (Eus., _H. E._ vi. 41, 42, and 44)\n\n(1) The persecution did not begin amongst us with the Imperial edict; for\nit anticipated that by a whole year. And the prophet and poet of evil to\nthis city, whoever he was,[13] was beforehand in moving and exciting the\nheathen crowds against us, rekindling their zeal for the national\nsuperstitions. So they being aroused by him and availing themselves of\nall lawful authority for their unholy doings, conceived that the only\npiety, the proper worship of their gods was this--to thirst for our\nblood. First, then, they carried off an old man, Metras, and bade him\nutter impious words,[14] and when he refused they beat his body with\nsticks and stabbed his face and eyes with sharp bulrushes as they led him\ninto the outskirts of the city and there stoned him. Then they led a\nbeliever named Quinta to the idol-house and tried to make her kneel down,\nand, when she turned away in disgust, they bound her by the feet and\nhauled her right through the city over the rough pavement, the big stones\nbruising her poor body, and at the same time beat her till they reached\nthe same spot, and there stoned her. Thereupon they all with one consent\nmade a rush on the houses of the believers, and, falling each upon those\nwhom they recognized as neighbours, plundered, harried and despoiled\nthem, setting aside the more valuable of their possessions and casting\nout into the streets and burning the cheaper things and such as were made\nof wood, till they produced the appearance of a city devastated by the\nenemy. But the brethren gave way and submitted and accepted the\nplundering of their possessions with joy like unto those of whom Paul\nalso testified.[15] And I know not if any, save possibly a single one who\nfell into their hands, up till now has denied the Lord.\n\nAnother notable case was that of the aged virgin Apollonia, whom they\nseized and knocked out all her teeth, striking her on the jaws: then they\nmade a pyre before the city and threatened to burn her alive, if she\nwould not join them in uttering blasphemies. But she asked for a brief\nrespite, and being let go, suddenly leapt into the fire and was devoured\nby the flames. Sarapion, also, they caught in his own house, and after\noutraging him with cruel tortures and crushing all his limbs, they cast\nhim headlong from the upper storey.\n\nAnd we could go by no high road, thoroughfare, or byway, either by day or\nby night; for everywhere and always there was a constant cry that any one\nwho did not utter words of blasphemy must be dragged off and burnt.\n\nAnd this state of things prevailed for some time, till the revolution and\ncivil war[16] occupied the attention of these unhappy men and turned on\none another their fury against us. And so we had a short breathing space,\nas they found no leisure for raging against us: but very soon the\noverthrow of the ruler who had been not unfavourable to us[17] is\nannounced, and our grave fears of being attacked are renewed. And, in\nfact, the edict arrived, which was itself almost to be compared with that\nforetold by the Lord, well-nigh the most terrible of all, so as to cause,\nif possible, even the elect to stumble.[18] Nevertheless all were\npanic-stricken, and numbers at once of those who were in higher\npositions, some came forward in fear, and some who held public posts were\nled by their official duties; others, again, were brought in by those\nabout them, and when their names were called, approached the impure and\nunholy sacrifices; pale and trembling in some cases as if they were not\ngoing to sacrifice but themselves become sacrifices and victims to the\nidols, so that they incurred ridicule from the large crowd that stood by,\nand proved themselves to be utter cowards both in regard to death and in\nregard to sacrificing, whilst others ran readily up to the altar, making\nit plain by their forwardness that they had not been Christians even\nbefore. About such the Lord's prediction is most true that with\ndifficulty shall they be saved.[19] And of the rest[20] some followed one\nor other of the above, while others fled or were captured: and of these\nlast, again, some after going as far as chains and imprisonment, and even\nafter being immured several days in certain cases, still, before coming\ninto court, forswore themselves; and others, even after enduring some\namount of torment, failed at the last. But the steadfast and blessed\npillars of the Lord,[21] being strengthened by Him and receiving due and\nproportionate power and endurance for the mighty Faith that was in them,\nproved themselves admirable witnesses of His Kingdom.[22] Foremost among\nthem was Julian, a sufferer from gout, unable to stand or walk; he was\nbrought up with two others, who carried him, of whom the one straightway\ndenied the Faith; the other, Cronion by name, but surnamed Eunous\n(well-disposed), and the old man Julian himself confessed the Lord and\nwere conveyed on camel's back, and scourged as they rode right through\nthe city--big though it be, as ye know--and at last were burnt with fire\nunquenchable, whilst all the people stood round. And a soldier who stood\nby as they were carried along and protested against those who insulted\nthem was denounced and brought up, to wit God's brave warrior Besas, and\nafter heroic conduct in the great war of piety was beheaded. And yet\nanother, a Libyan by race, who rightly and happily was named Mauar\n(happy),[23] though the judge urged him strongly to renounce the Faith,\nwould not give in, and so was burnt alive. After them Epimachus and\nAlexander, when they had remained a long time in bonds and had endured\nendless tortures from the \"claws\"[24] and scourges, were also consumed\nwith fire unquenchable. And with them four[25] women: Ammonarion, a holy\nvirgin, though the judge tortured her vigorously for a long time because\nshe had declared beforehand that she would say nothing that he bade her,\nkept true to her promise and was led off to punishment; and of the rest\nthere was the aged and reverend Mercuria and Dionysia, who, though she\nhad many children, did not love them above the Lord: these the Prefect\nwas ashamed to go on torturing in vain and be beaten by women, and so\nthey died by the sword without further tortures: for the brave Ammonarion\nhad exhausted all their devices.\n\nThen were delivered up three Egyptians: Heron, Ater and Isidore, and with\nthem Dioscorus, a lad of about fifteen. And first of all the Prefect\ntried to cajole the stripling with words, thinking he could easily be won\nover, and then to force him by torments, thinking he would soon give in,\nbut Dioscorus was neither persuaded nor forced. So the others he cruelly\nlacerated, and when they, too, stood firm, handed them over to the fire;\nbut Dioscorus, who had distinguished himself in public and had answered\nhis private questionings most wisely, he let off, saying that he granted\nhim a reprieve for repenting, on account of his age. And now[26] the\ngodly Dioscorus is still with us, having waited for his longer trial and\nhis more determined conflict.\n\nAnother Egyptian, Nemesion, was falsely accused of being an associate of\nbrigands, but being accused of that most untrue charge before the\ncenturion, he was then denounced as a Christian and came in chains before\nthe Prefect.[27] And he having most unjustly maltreated him with twice as\nmany tortures and stripes as the brigands had received, burnt him to\ndeath between them, being honoured, happy man, by the example of\nChrist.[28]\n\nAgain a whole quaternion of soldiers--Ammon, Zenon, Ptolemy and Ingenuus,\nand an old man, Theophilus, with them, were standing before the judgment\nseat, whilst some one was being tried for being a Christian, and when he\nshowed signs of denying the Faith they were so provoked as they stood by,\nnodding their heads, and stretching out their hands and making gestures\nwith their bodies, that they drew the general attention to themselves,\nand then, before any could seize them, they leapt upon the stand[29] of\ntheir own accord, saying they were Christians, so that the Prefect and\nhis assessors were frightened, and those who were being judged seemed to\ntake courage over what awaited them, and their judges lost heart. So\nthese soldiers walked in brave procession from the court and rejoiced in\ntheir witness (martyrdom), God giving them a glorious triumph.[30]\n\n(2) And many others in the cities and villages were torn asunder by the\nheathen (Gentiles), one of which I will mention as an example. Ischyrion\nacted as steward to one of the authorities at a wage. His employer bade\nhim sacrifice, ill-treated him when he refused, and on his persistence\ndrove him forth with insults: when he still stood his ground, he took a\nbig stick and killed him by driving it through his vital parts. What need\nto mention the multitude of those who wandered in deserts and\nmountains[31] consumed by hunger and thirst and cold and diseases and\nbrigands and wild beasts? the survivors of whom bear witness to their\nelection and victory.[32] Of these, also, I will bring forward one\ninstance by way of illustration. Ch\u00e6remon was the aged Bishop of what is\ncalled Nilopolis. He fled to the Arabian hills[33] with his wife[34] and\nnever returned, nor were they ever seen again by the brethren, who made\nlong search, but found neither them nor their bodies. And there were many\nwho on those very Arabian hills were sold into slavery by the barbarian\nSaracens,[35] of whom some were with difficulty ransomed at high sums,\nand others even yet have not been ransomed. And these things I have\ndescribed at length, brother, not without purpose, but in order that thou\nmightest know how many terrible things have taken place amongst us, of\nwhich those who have had more experience will know of more cases than I\ndo.\n\nThen shortly after he proceeds--\n\n(3) Accordingly, the holy martyrs themselves, when still amongst us, who\nare now the assessors of Christ and partners of His Kingdom, sharing His\njudgments and decisions,[36] espoused the cause of certain of the fallen\nbrethren who had incurred the charge of having done sacrifice, and seeing\ntheir conversion and repentance and approving it as fit to be accepted by\nHim who desireth not at all the death of the sinner so much as his\nrepentance,[37] received them, summoned them to assemblies, introduced\nthem and admitted them to the prayers and feasts.[38] What, then, do ye\ncounsel us in these matters, brethren? What ought we to do? Shall we\nacquiesce and assent to them and maintain their decision and concession\nand treat kindly those to whom they have extended mercy? or shall we hold\ntheir judgment wrong and set ourselves up as critics of their decision\nand vex their kind hearts and reverse their arrangement?\n\n[A further extract on the subject of the lapsed]\n\nI will set out the following single example that happened amongst us.\nThere was a certain aged believer amongst us, Sarapion, who had lived\nblamelessly for a long time but yielded to temptation. This man often\nbegged to be restored, but no one heeded him; for he had sacrificed. But\nhe fell ill, and for three days in succession he remained speechless and\nunconscious. Then recovering a little on the fourth day, he called to him\nhis nephew and said: \"How long, my child, do ye keep me back? hasten ye,\nI pray, and let me go speedily. Call thou one of the elders\n(presbyters).\" After this he became speechless again. The boy ran for the\nelder, but it was night and he was ill and could not come. Now I had\ngiven instructions that if those who were departing life asked and\nespecially when they chanced to have made supplication even before, they\nshould be absolved in order that they might depart in good hope; he gave\nthe boy, therefore, a morsel of the Eucharist, bidding him moisten it and\ndrop it into the old man's mouth. The lad went back with it. When he drew\nnear, before he entered, Sarapion revived again and said: \"Hast come,\nchild? The presbyter could not come, but do thou quickly what he bade\nthee, and let me go.\" So the boy moistened it and dropped it into his\nmouth: and the other shortly after swallowing it straightway gave up the\nghost. Was he not clearly sustained and kept alive until he was absolved\nthat, with his sin wiped out, he might be acknowledged (by the Lord) for\nthe many good things he had done?\n\n\n                          To Germanus a Bishop\n                   (Eus., _H. E._ vi. 40 and vii. 11)\n\n(1) Now before God I speak and He knoweth if I lie;[39] not at all on my\nown judgment nor yet without Divine guidance did I take flight, but on a\nformer occasion also as soon as ever the persecution under Decius was set\nup,[40] Sabinus[41] sent a _frumentarius_[42] to seek me; and I awaited\nhis arrival at my house for four days, while he went round searching\neverywhere, the streams, the roads and the fields, where he suspected me\nto hide or go, but he never lighted on my house, being held by blindness:\nfor he did not believe I should stay at home under pursuit. And hardly\nafter the four days when God bade me remove and unexpectedly made a way\nfor me, I and the boys[43] and many of the brethren went out together.\nAnd this was ordered by the Providence of God, as after events have\nshown, in which perchance we have been useful to some.\n\nFurther on he proceeds--\n\n(2) For about sunset I with my companions having fallen into the hands of\nthe soldiers, was taken to Taposiris, but Timotheus[44] by the Providence\nof God happened not to be present nor to be caught elsewhere. But\narriving afterwards, he found the house empty and servants guarding it,\nand us carried off prisoners.\n\nAnd further on--\n\n(3) And what is the manner of His wonderful dispensation? for only the\ntruth shall be spoken. One of the rustics met Timotheus as he was fleeing\nand troubled,[45] and inquired the reason of his haste. And he told the\ntruth, and when the other heard it (now he was going to a marriage revel:\nfor it is their custom to pass the whole night at such gatherings), he\nentered and informed those who were reclining at table. And they with one\nconsent as if at a signal all arose and came running at great speed and\nfell upon us with loud cries, and when the soldiers who were guarding us\nstraightway took to flight, they came upon us just as we were reclining\non the bare bedsteads. And I indeed, God wot, taking them at first to be\nbandits who had come for plunder and ravage, remained on the couch where\nI was, undressed save for my linen under-garment,[46] and began to offer\nthem the rest of my raiment which was at my side. But they bade me rise\nand go out as quickly as I could. And then I, understanding why they had\ncome, cried out begging and praying them to depart and leave us, and if\nthey would do us a good turn, I besought them to forestall those who had\ncarried me off and cut off my head themselves. And while I thus cried, as\nthey know who shared and took part in everything, they raised me by\nforce, and when I let myself down on my back to the ground, they took and\nled me out, dragging me by the arms and legs. And there followed me those\nwho had been witnesses of all this, Gaius, Faustus, Peter and Paul, and\nthey also helped to carry me out of the township in their arms, and then\nputting me on a barebacked ass, led me away.\n\n[Another extract from the same letter given by Eusebius in another part\nof his History, and referring to a somewhat later period in Dionysius's\nlife]\n\n(4) I am really in danger of falling into much foolishness[47] and want\nof right feeling through being compelled of necessity to narrate God's\nwondrous dispensation concerning us. But since \"it is good,\" it says,[48]\n\"to keep close the secret of a king but glorious to reveal the works of\nGod,\" I will come to close quarters with our violent accuser, Germanus. I\ncame before \u00c6milian[49] not alone; for there followed with me my\nfellow-presbyter[50] Maximus, and deacons Faustus, Eusebius and Ch\u00e6remon.\nAnd one of the brethren who was present from Rome came in with us. Now\n\u00c6milian did not say to me at the start, \"Do not summon\" (the brethren for\npublic worship): for that was superfluous and the last thing (to insist\non), since he was going back to the very beginning of the matter. For the\nquestion was not about summoning others but about not being Christians\nourselves, and it was from this that he bade us desist, thinking that if\nI should change my mind, the others would follow me. And I answered not\nunsuitably nor yet very differently from the words: \"We ought to obey God\nrather than men,\"[51] but I testified outright that I worship the only\nGod and none other, nor will I ever alter nor desist from being a\nChristian. Upon this he bade us go away to a village on the borders of\nthe desert named Cephro. Listen then to what was said on both sides as it\nwas (officially) recorded: Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus[52] and\nCh\u00e6remon being brought in, \u00c6milian the Prefect said: \"In the course of\nconversation also[53] I described to you the clemency which our\nSovereigns[54] have displayed towards you. For they gave you opportunity\nof being liberated if you would adopt a natural line of conduct and\nworship the gods who protect the Empire and give up those who are\ncontrary to nature. What say ye then to this? for I do not expect you\nwill be ungrateful for their clemency when they invite you to a better\ncourse.\" Dionysius answered: \"It is not a fact that all men worship all\ngods, for each worships certain whom he believes in. So with us, we\nworship and adore the One God, the Creator of all things, who has\nentrusted the Empire also to the most religious Emperors, Valerian and\nGallienus; and to Him we pray[55] without ceasing for their Empire that\nit may abide unshaken.\" \u00c6milian the Prefect said, \"But who prevents you\nfrom worshipping him also, if he be god, with the natural gods? for you\nwere ordered to worship gods and those which all know.\" Dionysius\nanswered: \"We worship none other but Him.\" \u00c6milian the Prefect said to\nthem: \"I observe that you together are both ungrateful and insensible of\nthe leniency of our Emperors. Wherefore ye shall not be in this city but\nshall be dismissed to the parts of Libya and stay in a place called\nCephro, which I have chosen at the bidding of our Emperors. And both you\nand others will be absolutely forbidden either to hold meetings or to\nenter the cemeteries so-called.[56] And if any one were to appear not to\nhave arrived at the place I have ordered or were found at any assembly,\nhe will do so at his own risk. For the necessary penalty will not be\nwanting. Be off therefore where ye were bidden.\" So he hurried me away\neven though I was sick, granting me not a day's respite. What leisure,\nthen, had I to call assemblies or not?[57]\n\nFurther on he says--\n\n(5) But we did not abstain even from the visible assembling of ourselves\ntogether in the Lord's presence, but those who were in the city\n(Alexandria) I the more earnestly urged to assemble, as if I were still\nwith them, being absent in the body, as it says, but present in the\nspirit.[58] And at Cephro also a large number of the Church were\nsojourning with us, consisting of the brethren who had followed us from\nthe city or were present from other parts of Egypt. There, too, the Lord\nopened us a door for the word.[59] And at first we were pursued and\nstoned, but later not a few of the Gentiles left their idols and turned\nto God. Thus the word was first sown through us in their hearts who had\nnot previously received it. And as it were for this cause God having led\nus to them, led us away again when we had fulfilled this ministry.[60]\nFor \u00c6milian wished, as it seemed, to transfer us to rougher and more\nLibyan-like parts, and bade those who were scattered in every direction\nto draw together to the Mareotis, assigning to each party one of the\nvillages of the district, but us he put more on the road so that we\nshould be the first to be arrested. For he evidently managed and arranged\nso that he might have us easy of capture whenever he wished to seize us.\nAnd as for me, when I was ordered to depart to Cephro, I did not even\nknow in what direction the place lay, hardly having heard so much as the\nname before; and yet I went off willingly and without trouble. But when\nit was told me that they would remove me to the parts of Colluthion, all\nwho were present know how I was affected. For here I will accuse myself.\nAt first I was vexed and took it very ill. For though the place happened\nto be better known and more familiar to us, yet people said it was devoid\nof brethren and respectable folk, being exposed to the annoyances of\nwayfarers and the attacks of robbers. But I found consolation when the\nbrethren reminded me that it is nearer to the city, and that, while\nCephro gave much opportunity of intercourse with brethren from Egypt in\ngeneral, so that one could draw congregations from a wider area, yet at\nColluthion we should more constantly enjoy the sight of those who were\nreally loved and most intimate and dear. For they would be able to come\nand stay the night and there would be district-meetings as is the case\nwith outlying suburbs.[61] And so it turned out.\n\nAnd lower down again he writes this about what had happened to him--\n\n(6) Many indeed are the confessions of faith over which Germanus prides\nhimself: many are the things which he has to mention as having happened\nto him. Can he reckon up as many in his own case as I can in\nmine--condemnations, confiscations, sales by public auction, spoiling of\none's possessions, loss of dignities, despisings of worldly honour,\ncontempt of commendations by Prefects and Councils and of opponents'\nthreats, endurance of clamourings and dangers and persecutions and\nwanderings and tribulations and much affliction, such as are the things\nwhich have happened unto me under Decius and Sabinus and up to the\npresent time under \u00c6milian? But where did Germanus appear? What talk was\nthere of him? However, I withdraw from the much foolishness into which I\nam falling through Germanus; wherefore I refrain from giving a detailed\naccount of events to the brethren who know all.\n\n\n                             (To Novatian)\n                         (Eus., _H. E._ vi. 45)\n\nIf it was against thy will, as thou sayest, that thou wast promoted,[62]\nthou wilt prove this by retiring of thine own accord. It were good to\nsuffer anything and everything so to escape dividing the Church of God.\nAnd martyrdom[63] to avoid schism is no less glorious than martyrdom to\navoid idolatry. Nay, it is to my mind greater. In one case a man is a\nmartyr for his own single soul's sake. But this is for the whole Church.\nEven now wast thou to persuade or constrain the brethren to come to one\nmind, thy true deed[64] were greater than thy fall. This will not be\nreckoned to thee, the other will be lauded. And if thou shouldest be\npowerless to sway disobedient spirits, save, save thine own soul.[65] I\npray for thy health and thy steadfast cleaving to peace in the Lord.\n\n[I have to thank the editors and publishers for leave to reprint the\nabove translation by Archbishop Benson from his _Cyprian_, p. 142.]\n\n\n   To Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, in Reply to a Letter from him about\n                          Novatian (circ. 253)\n\nEusebius (_H. E._ vi. 46) quotes only one short sentence from Dionysius's\nletter, which refers to the death of Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, one\nof Origen's distinguished pupils and supporters. Alexander twice boldly\nconfessed Christ in the Governor's Court at C\u00e6sarea and died at last in\nprison. The sentence is as follows--\n\n\"The admirable[66] Alexander entered into a blessed rest whilst in\ncustody.\"\n\nAccording to Eusebius, the letter also mentioned the invitation which\nDionysius had received from the Bishops of Asia Minor to attend a synod\nat Antioch at which \"they tried to suppress the schism of Novatian.\"\n\n\n                      To Stephanus, Bishop of Rome\n                      (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 4 and 5)\n              (_The First of the Epistles about Baptism_)\n\n(1) Know now, brother, that all the Churches in the East and even further\nafield[67] which were divided, have been united: and all their rulers\neverywhere are of one mind, rejoicing exceedingly at the unexpected\npeace[68] which has come about, Demetrian in Antioch, Theoctistus in\nC\u00e6sarea, Mazabbanes in \u00c6lia,[69] Marinus in Tyre, Alexander having fallen\nasleep, Heliodorus in Laodicea, Thelymidrus being at rest, Helenus in\nTarsus and all the Churches of Cilicia, Firmilianus[70] and all\nCappadocia. For I have mentioned only the more prominent of the Bishops,\nin order that I may not make my letter too long nor my narrative\nwearisome. Nevertheless, the whole of Syria and Arabia, districts whose\nneeds ye from time to time supply[71] and to whom ye now have sent an\nepistle, Mesopotamia also and Pontus and Bithynia, and, in one word, all\nmen everywhere exult in the harmony and brotherly love displayed and\npraise God for it.[72]\n\n[The two following extracts are translated from Syriac versions, and I am\nindebted for them to Mr. N. MacLean of Christ's College, Cambridge. The\nfirst has been put together out of two MSS. in the British Museum,\nneither of which contains the whole, and was printed by Pitra, _Analecta\nSacra_, Vol. IV. The Greek original of most of the first sentence is\npreserved in a catena on Deuteronomy, _Cod. Vat._ 1521, fol. 591, and was\nfirst printed by Simon de Magistris in his edition of our author, p. 200.\nThere is much probability that this extract formed part of the same\nletter to Stephanus as the extract from Eusebius which precedes it here.\nThe second extract is found in three other Syriac MSS. in the British\nMuseum, but is less certainly part of this letter, or indeed authentic at\nall.]\n\n(2) If so be that any man speak a wicked thing of God like those who call\nHim unpitying[73] or any man living in the fear of other gods, the Law\nhas commanded that such a one be stoned:[74] but we would stone these men\nwith sound words of faith. Or if a man receive not at all the mystery[75]\nof Christ or alter and distort it--(saying) that He is not God, or that\nhe did not become a man, or that He did not die, or that He did not rise,\nor that He will not come to judge the quick and the dead--or preach\nanything else apart from what we preached, let him be a curse, says\nPaul.[76] Or if so be he have wronged the word concerning the\nresurrection of the flesh, let him be already reckoned with the dead. For\nwe speak in carefulness concerning these things--in order that we may be\nin agreement one with another, churches with churches, bishops with\nbishops, priests with priests. And in regard to causes and affairs about\nmatters which concern individual men--how it is right to receive him who\napproaches from without and how him who comes from within[77]--we counsel\nto obey those who stand at the head of every place who by Divine\nelection[78] are put into this ministration--leaving to our Lord the\njudgment of all things which they do.\n\n(3) Those who were baptized in the name of the three Persons--the Father,\nthe Son, and the Holy Spirit--though they were baptized by heretics who\nconfess the three Persons, shall not be re-baptized. But those who are\nconverted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the\nHoly Church.[79]\n\n\n                      To Xystus (or Sixtus) II[80]\n                      (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 5, 3-6)\n                   (_The second on the same subject_)\n\n(1) (Stephen) therefore had sent word concerning Helenus and concerning\nFirmilianus, and all the bishops of Cilicia and Cappadocia and (be it\nnoted) of Galatia and all the neighbouring churches likewise--to the\neffect that he would not hold communion with them for this same reason,\nsince, he says, they re-baptize the heretics.[81] And observe the\nimportance of the matter. For decrees had really been passed about it in\nthe largest synods of the bishops,[82] as I am informed, so that those\nwho come over from heretical bodies, after a course of instruction, are\nwashed and cleansed from the defilement of the old and unclean\nleaven.[83] About all this also I have written asking him for\ninformation.\n\n(2) To our beloved fellow-presbyters also, Dionysius and Philemon, who\nhad formerly sided with Stephanus and were correspondents of mine on the\nsame matter, I have written briefly the first time and more fully\nnow.[84]\n\n(3) The teaching which is now at work in Ptolemais of Pentapolis,[85] is\nimpious, full of blasphemy about the Almighty God and Father[86] of our\nLord Jesus Christ and full of unbelief about His only begotten Son,[87]\nthe First-born of all creation,[88] the Incarnate Word, and displays want\nof perception concerning the Holy Spirit. And therefore, when both\nofficial communications from both parties arrived and some of the\nbrethren sought personal interviews with me, I wrote what I could[89] by\nthe Divine assistance and gave a somewhat methodical explanation of the\nmatter, a copy of which I have sent you.\n\n\n                              To Philemon\n                         (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 7)\n                   (_The third on the same subject_)\n\n(1) I read both the critical researches and the traditional treatises[90]\nof the heretics, defiling my soul a little with their abominable opinions\nand yet gaining this advantage from them, that I could refute them for\nmyself and abhor them much more thoroughly. And indeed when a certain\nbrother among the presbyters tried to restrain me and frighten me from\ncontaminating myself with the mire of their iniquity (he said I should\nruin my soul, and, as I perceived, there was truth in what he said), a\nheaven-sent vision[91] came and strengthened me, and words came to me\nwhich expressly ordered me thus: \"Read all that may come to thy hands:\nfor thou art competent to sift and test everything, and that was the\noriginal reason[92] of thy accepting the Faith.\" I acknowledged the\nvision as in agreement with the apostolic voice which says to the more\nable: \"Approve yourselves bankers of repute.\"[93]\n\n(2) This cause and rule I received from our blessed Father[94] Heraclas.\nFor those that came over from the heretics, although they had apostatized\nfrom the Church--or rather had not even done that but were informed\nagainst as resorting to some heretical teacher, though still reputed\nmembers of our congregations--these he repelled from the Church, and did\nnot restore them at their request until they had publicly and fully\nstated all that they had heard among those who set themselves against us;\nand then he admitted them without requiring them to be re-baptized: for\nthey had received that holy gift already.\n\n(3) I have learnt this also, that the brethren in Africa[95] did not\nintroduce this practice (of re-baptism) now for the first time, but it\nwas also adopted some time ago among our predecessors as Bishops, in the\nmost populous churches and well-attended synods of the brethren, viz. in\nIconium and Synnada,[96] and I cannot bring myself to reverse their\ndecisions and involve them in strife and controversy. For \"thou shalt not\nremove,\" it says, \"thy neighbour's boundaries, which thy fathers\nset.\"[97]\n\n\n                          To Dionysius of Rome\n                    (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 7, 6 and 8)\n                    (_The fourth letter on Baptism_)\n\nFor with Novatian we are reasonably indignant, seeing that he has cut the\nChurch in two and dragged certain of the brethren into impieties and\nblasphemies and introduced the most unholy teaching about God and accuses\nthe most gracious Jesus Christ our Lord of being without pity,[98] and\nbesides all this sets at nought the holy laws and overthrows the\nconfession of faith before baptism,[99] and altogether banishes the Holy\nSpirit from them, even though there were some hope of His remaining or\neven of His returning to them.[100]\n\n\n                 To Xystus (Sixtus) II, Bishop of Rome\n                         (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 9)\n                      (_The fifth about Baptism_)\n\nI truly desire counsel, brother, and ask an opinion from you, being\nafraid lest after all I am wrong in my treatment of a case that has come\nbefore me as follows--\n\nOne who is reckoned faithful among the brethren who meet together, of old\nstanding, having been a member even before my ordination (as Bishop), and\nI fancy even before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, had been\npresent at a recent baptism and heard the questions and answers (in that\nservice). He came to me weeping and bemoaning himself and falling at my\nfeet, confessing and protesting that the baptism he had received among\nthe heretics was not this, nor had anything in common with it: for that\nwas full of impiety and blasphemies:[101] and he said that he was now\nsore pricked in the soul and had no courage even to lift up his eyes to\nGod, because he had started with such unholy words and rites, and so he\nbegged to obtain this thorough means of purification and acceptance and\ngrace. But this I did not venture to do, saying that his so long being in\ncommunion with us was sufficient for the purpose. For as he had heard the\nGiving of Thanks (Eucharist) and joined in saying the Amen,[102] and\nstood[103] at the Table[104] and stretched forth his hands to receive the\nholy Food and had taken it and partaken of the Body and Blood of our Lord\nJesus Christ for a considerable period, I should not venture to put him\nback to the beginning once more. So I bade him take courage and approach\nfor the receiving of the Holy Things with sure faith and good hope. But\nhe ceases not to grieve, and shrinks from approaching the Table and can\nwith difficulty be persuaded to stand with (the _Consistentes_)[105] for\nthe Prayers.\n\n\n                             To Conon[106]\n        (Pitra, _Spic. Sol._ i. 15, from a Bodl. MS. dated 1062)\n\nAs to those who are nearing the end of life, if they desire and beg to\nobtain absolution, having before their eyes the judgment to which they\nare departing, considering what is in store for them, if they are handed\nover thereto bound and condemned, and believing that they will gain\nrelief and lightening of punishment there, if they be loosed here--for\nthese the approval of the Lord is true and assured--these, too, it is\npart of the Divine mercy to send on their way free. If, however, they\nafterwards continue to live, it does not appear to me consistent to bind\nthem again and load them with their sins. For when once absolved and\nreconciled to God, and pronounced again to be partakers of Divine grace\nand dispatched as free to appear before the Lord,[107] so long as nothing\nwrong has been done by them in the meantime to bring them back into\nbondage for their sins were most unreasonable. Shall we after that[108]\nimpose on God the limits of our judgment, to be kept by Him while we\nobserve them not ourselves, making parade of the goodness of the\nLord[109] but withholding our own? Nevertheless if any one, after\nrecovery, should show himself in need of further treatment, we counsel\nhim, of his own accord, to humble and abase and lower himself, with a\nview to his own improvement and also to what is seemly in the eyes of the\nbrethren and irreproachable before those without.[110] If he consent to\nthis, he will be the gainer: but, if he should object and refuse, then no\ndoubt that will be a sufficient ground for a second exclusion.\n\n\n                   From the Writings about Repentance\n             (Mai, _Class. Auct._ x. 484, from a Vat. MS.)\n\nBut now we do the contrary. For him whom Christ in His goodness seeks\nwhen wandering upon the mountains, and calls to Himself when fleeing, and\nlays upon His shoulders when found at last,[111] him we resolutely repel\nwhen he approaches. Nay, let us not adopt so evil a counsel for our own\nsake, nor drive the sword into our own heart. For they that endeavour to\ninjure or, on the other hand, to benefit others, may not altogether have\nthe effect they desired upon them, but they do bring about good or evil\nfor themselves and replenish their store either of heavenly virtues or of\nundisciplined affections. And these taking good angels as their\ncompanions and fellow-travellers,[112] both here and hereafter, in all\npeace and freedom from every evil, will be allotted the most blessed\ninheritances for eternity and will ever be with God, the greatest good of\nall; and those will forfeit at once the peace of God and their own peace,\nand both here and after death will be handed over to tormenting demons.\nLet us then not repel those who return, but gladly welcome them and\nnumber them with those who have not strayed, and thus supply that which\nis wanting[113] in them.\n\n\n                        To Domitius and Didymus\n                        (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 11)\n                      (_Part of an Easter Letter_)\n\n(1) It is superfluous to mention by name the many members of our body,\nwho are unknown to you: but you should know that men and women, young and\nold, soldiers[114] and civilians, every class and age, some by the\nscourge and fire and some by the sword have conquered in the fight and\ncarried off their crowns, while with some even a very long period did not\nprove sufficient to show them acceptable to the Lord (as martyrs), as in\nfact seems to be the case even now with me.[115] Wherefore I have been\nput off until a time which He Himself knows to be the right one by Him\nwho saith: \"In a time acceptable I heard thee, and in the day of\nsalvation I succoured thee.\"[116] For since you inquire and wish to be\ninformed how we fare, by all means hear our experiences: how that when we\nwere being led away prisoners by a centurion and duumviri[117] with their\nsoldiers and servants, viz. myself and Gaius, Faustus, Peter and Paul,\ncertain of the inhabitants of the Mareotis came upon us, and with\nviolence dragged us off against our will and in spite of our\nprotests.[118] And now I with Gaius and Peter only, deprived of the\ncompany of the other brethren,[119] am shut in a desolate and dreary part\nof Libya, three days' journey from Par\u00e6tonium.[120]\n\nAnd further on he says--\n\n(2) In the city there have concealed themselves, secretly looking after\nthe brethren, from among the presbyters Maximus,[121] Dioscorus,\nDemetrius and Lucius (for Faustinus and Aquila, who were better known in\nthe world, are wandering in other parts of Egypt), and of the deacons\nFaustus, Eusebius and Ch\u00e6remon, who survived those who perished in the\npestilence.[122] Eusebius was he whom from the beginning God strengthened\nand inspired to perform many services for the confessors in prison with\nall energy, and to carry out at no small risk the last offices for the\nperfect[123] and blessed martyrs in decking out their bodies (for\nburial). For up till now the Prefect does not cease from cruelly slaying\nsome of those who are brought before him, as I have already said, and\nfrom tearing others in pieces with instruments of torture, while he\ncrushes the spirits of others again with chains and imprisonment,\nforbidding any to visit them and making search lest any should be found\ndoing so. Nevertheless, God gives them some respite from their miseries\nthrough the zeal and steadfast efforts of the brethren.\n\n\n                              To Hermammon\n                     (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 1, 10, 23)\n                   (_Part of another Easter Letter_)\n\n(1) Even Gallus[124] did not know the flaw in Decius's policy, nor did he\nforesee what it was that upset him, but stumbled over the same stone that\nwas right before his eyes. For, though his reign was prospering and\nthings were going according to his mind, he drove into exile the holy men\nwho were interceding with God for his peace and health, with the effect\nthat with them he drove out also their prayers on his behalf.\n\nSo far on that point, and then again he discourses about Valerian in the\nsame letter--\n\n(2) To John also it is revealed in like manner, when he says: \"There was\ngiven him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy, and there was\ngiven him authority and forty-two months.\"[125] And both these things are\nto be wondered at in the case of Valerian,[126] and of them it is\nespecially to be observed how his prosperity lasted so long as he was\ngentle and well-disposed towards the men of God.[127] For none of the\nEmperors before him were so kindly and favourably affected towards them,\nnot even those who were said to have been openly Christians,[128] as he\nmanifestly was, receiving them at the beginning in a most familiar and\nfriendly spirit: indeed, his whole house was filled with devout persons\nand was a veritable Church of God.[129] But he was persuaded to abandon\nthis treatment by that tutor and chief ruler of Egyptian magicians,[130]\nwho instructed him to slay or persecute, as adversaries and hinderers of\nhis vile and detestable sorcerers, the pure and holy persons, who are and\nwere able to confound the devices of accursed demons by being present and\nseen and merely breathing on them and uttering words,[131] while he also\nincited him to perform unholy rites and detestable juggleries and\nabominable sacrifices such as the killing of wretched boys and the\nslaying of unhappy fathers' children and the dividing of new-born\nentrails asunder and the cutting up and mutilating of bodies which are\nGod's creation,[132] in the hope that such doings would bring them Divine\nfavour.\n\nAnd to this he adds as follows--\n\n(3) Fine offerings at all events did Macrianus make to them (sc. the\ndemons) to propitiate them for the Empire which he hoped for, when, in\nhis former position as so-called officer in charge of the Emperor's\ngeneral ({katholou}) accounts he entertained no reasonable ({eulogon})\nnor catholic ({katholikon}) sentiments,[133] but fell under the prophet's\ncurse, who says: \"Woe to those who prophesy out of their own heart and\nsee not the general ({to katholou}) view.\"[134] For he did not understand\nthe workings of Universal ({katholou}) Providence,[135] nor suspect the\napproach of Judgment on the part of Him who is before all things and\nthrough all things and over all things.[136] Wherefore he has become also\nthe enemy of His universal ({katholik\u00eas}) Church and has alienated and\nestranged himself from God's mercy and banished himself as far as\npossible from his own salvation, verifying in this his personal\nname.[137]\n\nAnd again further on he says--\n\n(4) For Valerian, through being persuaded to this policy by him, exposed\nhimself to insults and injuries according to that which was said to\nIsaiah: \"And these men chose their ways and their abominations which\ntheir soul desired, and I will choose their mockings and will recompense\nthem their sins.\"[138]\n\nBut this man (Macrianus) in his mad lust after imperial power for which\nhe had no qualifications, being unable to deck his own crippled body with\nthe imperial robes, put forward his two sons, who thus became liable for\ntheir father's sins.[139] For the prophecy clearly applies to them which\nGod spake: \"visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the\nthird and fourth generation of them that hate me.\"[140] For he brought\nupon his sons' heads his own evil desires in which he had succeeded and\ninvolved them in the consequences of his own wickedness and hatred of\nGod.[141]\n\nThen there is a section in which he refers to the peaceful times under\nGallienus--\n\n(5) So after thus inciting one of the Emperors before him and attacking\nthe other, he speedily vanished with all his family, root and\nbranch,[142] whilst Gallienus was proclaimed and acknowledged by all,\nbeing at once the old and the new Emperor, having preceded the usurpers\nand remaining after them. For, in accordance with that which was spoken\nto the prophet Isaiah, \"behold the things predicted from the beginning\nhave come to pass, and new things which will now arise.\"[143] For as a\ncloud having overcast the sun's rays and screened them for a while shades\nit and shows itself in its stead, and then when the cloud has passed off\nor been dissipated the sun which was shining before emerges and shines\nforth again, so it is with Macrianus; after coming forward and gaining\naccess for himself to the imperial power which belonged to Gallienus, he\nceases to be, since he was of no account, and the other resumes the\nposition he had before. And the Empire, having cast off, as it were, its\nold age and purged itself of its former badness, now bursts into greater\nsplendour, is seen and heard from afar and pervades the whole world.\n\nThen in due order he indicates the date of this letter in these words--\n\n(6) And once more it occurs to me to consider the days and years of this\nperiod of the Empire. For I observe that the ungodly persons (I have\nmentioned) after a short period of honourable mention have lost their\ngood name, but (Gallienus) who was more righteous and loved God\nbetter,[144] having completed the seven years' period, is now passing\nthrough his ninth year:[145] therefore let us keep the Feast.[146]\n\n\n                     To the Brethren in Alexandria\n                        (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 22)\n                   (_Part of another Easter Letter_)\n\n(1) Other men would not think the present a time for \"keeping festival:\nnor, indeed, is this nor any other such a time to them; I speak not of\ntimes obviously sorrowful, but even of such as they might consider most\njoyful. In these days there are lamentations everywhere, and all are\nmourning: wailings resound through the city by reason of the number of\nthe dead and the dying day by day. For, as it is written about the\nfirstborn of the Egyptians, so now also \"a great cry arose: for there is\nnot a house in which there is not one dead.\"[147] I would, indeed, there\nwere but one; for the things that have before now befallen us were truly\nmany and grievous.[148] First of all they drove us into exile and we kept\nthe feast then too by ourselves, persecuted and harried to death by all,\nand every place where each particular affliction befel us became the\nscene of our festal assembly, open country, desert, ship, inn or prison,\nand our perfect[149] martyrs spent the brightest of all feasts, being\nentertained in heaven above. But after this war and famine seized us,\nwhich we endured in common with the Gentiles, having undergone alone all\nthe injuries they had inflicted on us and then having to share in the\nevils they wrought on one another and suffered: and once more we rejoiced\nin the peace of Christ, which He has given to us alone. But now after we\nand they had obtained a very brief respite, this pestilence has overtaken\nus, which is to them a more fearful thing than all former fears and more\nterrible than any calamity whatever, and to quote an expression of an\nhistorian of their own,[150] \"a thing which alone has exceeded all men's\nexpectation,\" while to us it was not so much that as a discipline and a\ntesting no less severe than any of the rest: for it did not spare us,\nthough it attacked the Gentiles in great force.\n\nTo this he adds as follows--\n\n(2) At all events most of the brethren through their love and brotherly\naffection for us spared not themselves nor abandoned one another, but\nwithout regard to their own peril visited those who fell sick, diligently\nlooking after and ministering to them and cheerfully shared their fate\nwith them, being infected with the disease from them and willingly\ninvolving themselves in their troubles. Not a few also, after nursing\nothers back to recovery, died themselves, taking death over from them and\nthus fulfilling in very deed the common saying, which is taken always as\na note of mere good feeling; for in their departure they became their\nexpiatory substitutes.[151] At all events, the very pick of our brethren\nlost their lives in this way, both priests and deacons and some highly\npraised ones from among the laity, so that this manner of dying does not\nseem far removed from martyrdom, being the outcome of much piety and\nstalwart faith. So, too, taking up the bodies of the saints on their arms\nand breasts, closing their eyes and shutting their mouths, bearing them\non their shoulders and laying them out for burial, clinging to them,\nembracing them, washing them, decking them out, they not long after had\nthe same services rendered to them; for many of the survivors followed in\ntheir train. But the Gentiles behaved quite differently: those who were\nbeginning to fall sick they thrust away, and their dearest they fled\nfrom, or cast them half dead into the roads: unburied bodies they treated\nas vile refuse;[152] for they tried to avoid the spreading and\ncommunication of the fatal disease, difficult as it was to escape for all\ntheir scheming.\n\n\n                      To Hierax an Egyptian Bishop\n                        (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 21)\n                   (_Part of another Easter Letter_)\n\nBut what is there surprising in its being difficult for me to correspond\neven by letter with those who are sojourning at a distance, seeing that\nit has proved impossible to talk even with myself and to take counsel\nwith my own soul? At all events, with my own kith and kin, with the\nbrethren of my own house and life, citizens of the same Church, I have to\ncommunicate by letters and to get them through seems impracticable. For\nit were easier for one to pass, I say not across the frontier, but even\nfrom East to West, than to visit one part of Alexandria from another. For\nthat vast, pathless desert which it took Israel two generations to\ntraverse is not so impassable and hard to cross as the central street of\nthe city, nor is the sea, which they had for a carriage-road when the\nwaters were parted asunder to make a passage through. And our still and\nwaveless harbours[153] have become an image of those in the passing of\nwhich the Egyptians were overwhelmed; for they have often appeared like\nthe Red Sea from the blood which was in them. And the river which flows\npast the city at one time appeared drier than the waterless desert and\nmore parched than that which Israel crossed over when they were so\nthirsty that Moses cried out and drink flowed out of the steep rock from\nHim that worketh wonders:[154] and at another time it was so full as to\noverflow the whole neighbourhood, both roads and fields, and to threaten\na return of the flood which occurred in the days of Noah. But in either\ncase it runs polluted with blood and slaughter and drowned corpses, as\nunder Moses it happened to Pharaoh, when the river turned to blood and\nstank.[155] And what other water could cleanse all this but the water\nwhich itself cleanseth all things?[156] How could the mighty ocean which\nman cannot cross, overspread and sweep away this horrid flood? or how\ncould the great river that goeth out of Eden wash off the stain, though\nit were to divert the four heads into which it is divided into the single\nhead of the Gihon?[157] or when would the air, reeking everywhere with\nthe evil exhalation, become pure? For such mist from the ground and\nbreezes from the sea, airs from the rivers and vapours from the harbours\nare given off that for dew we have the impure fluids of corpses rotting\nin all their component elements. After all this do men wonder, are they\nat a loss, whence come the continual pestilences, whence the dire\ndiseases, whence the divers ravages, whence the wholesale destruction of\nlife, why the largest city no longer contains in it its former multitude\nof inhabitants, from infant children to the most advanced in years, whom\nit used to nourish in other days to a green old age,[158] as the saying\nwent, whereas these from forty up to seventy years of age were so much\nmore numerous then that their number is not now reached even when all\nfrom fourteen to eighty are enrolled and put together for the public\ndistribution of food,[159] and thus those whose looks show them to be\nquite young have become as it were of equal age with those who have long\nbeen advanced in years. And though they see the race of man on earth thus\ndwindling ever and being exhausted, they do not tremble,[160] as its\ntotal extinction proceeds and draws near.\n\n\n                     (_From another Easter Letter_)\n\n[This fragment is given in the _Sacra Parallela Rupefucald._, fol. 70 and\n71, where it is ascribed to Dionysius's \"Fourth Easter Letter.\" It is by\nno means clear which Letter is meant, but the main thought (of the\ncunning devices by which Love wins its way) is quaintly beautiful and\nwell worthy of our author]\n\nLove leaps out in utmost eagerness to confer some benefit even on an\nunwilling object: yea, often on one who shrinks in shame and tries to\nshun kind treatment from dislike of being burdensome to another, and\nwould fain put up with his annoyances alone, in order not to cause\ntrouble and inconvenience to any. He that is full of Love craves leave to\nsuffer and endure: to be in evil case, he thinks, gives opportunity for\nbeing helped, and he will do the greatest favour to another, not himself,\nif through that other the evil, which is his own, is made to cease.[161]\n\n\n   To Basilides, Bishop of the Churches in the Pentapolis (Cyrenaica)\n\n[This canonical Letter was accepted at the third Council of\nConstantinople _in Trullo_ (A.D. 680)]\n\nDionysius to Basilides my beloved son and brother and godly\nfellow-worker, greeting in the Lord.\n\n(1) You sent to me, my most faithful and learned son, to inquire at what\nhour one ought to end the fast before Easter.[162] For you say that some\nof the brethren maintain one should do so at cockcrow:[163] and some at\nevening.[164] For the brethren in Rome, so they say, await the cockcrow:\nbut concerning those in the Pentapolis you said they broke the fast\nsooner. And you ask me to set an exact limit and a definite hour, which\nis both difficult and risky. For it will be acknowledged by all alike\nthat one ought to start the feast and the gladness after the time of our\nLord's resurrection, up till then humbling our souls with fastings. But\nby what you have written to me, you have quite soundly and with a good\ninsight into the Divine Gospels established the fact that nothing\ndefinite appears in them about the hour at which He rose. For the\nEvangelists described those that came to the tomb diversely--that is, at\ndifferent times, and all[165] said that they have found the Lord already\nrisen: it was \"late on the Sabbath day,\" as S. Matthew puts it:[166] and\n\"early while it was yet dark,\" as S. John writes; and \"at early dawn,\" as\nS. Luke; and \"very early ... when the sun was risen,\" as S. Mark. And\nwhen He rose, no one has clearly stated; but that \"late on the Sabbath\nday, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,\" about\nsunrise on that day those who arrived at the tomb found Him no longer\nlying in it, that is agreed to. And we must not imagine that the\nevangelists are at variance and contradict one another: but even if there\nseem to be some small dispute upon the matter of your inquiry--that is,\nif though all agree that the Light of the world[167] our Lord arose on\nthat night, they differ about the hour, yet let us be anxious fairly and\nfaithfully to harmonize what is said.\n\nWhat is said, then, by Matthew runs thus: \"Late on the Sabbath day, as it\nbegan to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and\nthe other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great\nearthquake: for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and\nrolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was as\nlightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the\nwatchers did quake and became as dead men. And the angel answered and\nsaid unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus which\nhath been crucified. He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said.\"\nAs to this word which he uses for \"late,\" some will think, in accordance\nwith its common acceptation, that the evening of the Sabbath is\nsignified; but others, understanding it more scientifically, will say it\nis not that, but \"the dead of night,\" the word used signifying an\nadvanced stage of lateness.[168] And because he means night and not\nevening, he adds \"as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week\"\nand (the women) had not yet come, as the rest say, \"bringing spices\" but\n\"to see the sepulchre.\"[169] And they found the earthquake had occurred\nand the angel seated on the stone, and heard from him the words: \"He is\nnot here: he is risen.\" Similarly, John says: \"On the first day of the\nweek came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and\nseeth the stone taken away from the tomb.\" However, by this account,\n\"when it was still dark\" although towards dawn, He had gone forth from\nthe tomb. But Luke says: \"On the Sabbath they rested according to the\ncommandment. But on the first day of the week at early dawn (the women)\ncame unto the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they\nfound the stone rolled away from the tomb.\" \"Early dawn\" indicates,\nperchance, the morning light appearing before (the sun itself) on \"the\nfirst day of the week.\" In consequence, it was when the Sabbath had now\ncompletely passed, with the night that followed, and when a new day was\nbeginning that they came bringing the spices and ointments, by which time\nit is clear that He had risen long before. To this, also, corresponds\nwhat Mark says: \"(The women) brought spices that they might come and\nanoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they come to the\ntomb, when the sun was risen.\" For he, too, says \"very early,\" which is\nthe same thing as \"at early dawn\": and he has added, \"when the sun was\nrisen.\" For their start and their journey began, it is clear, \"at early\ndawn\" and \"very early\": but they had gone on spending time both on the\nroad and around the tomb until sunrise. And on this occasion also[170]\nthe white robed young man says to these women: \"He is risen: he is not\nhere.\"\n\nAs things stand thus, we pronounce this decision for those who inquire to\na nicety at what hour or what half-hour, or quarter of an hour, they\nshould begin their rejoicing at the Resurrection of our Lord from the\ndead: those who are premature and relax before midnight, though near it,\nwe censure as remiss and wanting in self-restraint; for they drop out of\nthe race just before the end, as the wise man says: \"that which is within\na little in life is not little.\"[171] And those who put off and endure to\nthe furthest and persevere till the fourth watch, when our Saviour\nappeared to those who were sailing also, walking on the sea,[172] we\nshall approve as generous and painstaking. And those midway who stop as\nthey were moved or as they were able, let us not treat altogether\nseverely. For all do not continue during the six days of the fast either\nequally or similarly:[173] but some remain without food till\ncockcrow[174] on all the days, some on two, or three, or four, and some\non none of them. And for those who strictly persist in these prolonged\nfasts and then are distressed and almost faint, there is pardon if they\ntake something sooner. But if some, so far from prolonging their fast do\nnot fast at all, but feed luxuriously during the earlier days of the\nweek, and then, when they come to the last two and prolong their fast on\nthem alone, viz. on Friday and Saturday, think they are performing some\ngreat feat by continuing till dawn, I do not hold that they have\nexercised an equal discipline with those who have practised it for longer\nperiods. I give you this counsel in accordance with my judgment in\nwriting on these points.\n\n[Three rulings follow on points which it is not necessary to set out\nhere]\n\n(2) These answers I give you from respect for you, beloved, not because\nyou were ignorant of the subjects of your inquiry but to render us of one\nmind and soul[175] with yourself, as indeed we are. And I have set forth\nmy opinion for you to share not as a teacher but as it becomes us to\ndiscuss one with another in all simplicity: and when you have considered\nit again, my most sagacious son, you should write again and tell me\nwhatever seems to you better or what you judge to be as I have said.\n\nI pray that you may prosper, my beloved son, as you minister to the\nLord[176] in peace.\n\n\n\n\n                               TREATISES\n\n\n                           \"On the Promises\"\n                     (Eus., _H. E._ vii. 24 and 25)\n\n(1) Seeing that they bring forward a composition of Nepos,[177] on which\nthey rely too much as showing irrefutably that the Kingdom of Christ will\nbe on earth, though I accept and love Nepos for many other things, his\nfaith, his laboriousness, his study of the Scriptures, and the many\npsalms he has written,[178] by which already many of the brethren are\nencouraged, and though I hold him in all the greater respect because he\nhas gone to his rest before us, yet the truth is so dear to me and to be\npreferred that I can indeed applaud and give my full assent to right\npropositions, but must examine and correct whatever appears to be\nunsoundly stated. And if he were still with us and propounding his views\nmerely by word of mouth, a discussion without writing would have sufficed\nto persuade and convince our opponents by way of question and answer. But\nnow that this writing of his is published, which many think most\nconvincing, and certain teachers hold the law and the prophets of no\naccount and have relinquished the following of the Gospels and\ndepreciated the Epistles of the Apostles, while they parade the teaching\nof this book as if it were some great and hidden mystery and will not\nallow our simpler brethren to hold any high and noble opinion either\nabout the glorious and truly Divine appearing of our Lord[179] or about\nour rising from the dead and our gathering together and being made like\nunto Him,[180] but persuade them to hope for mean and passing enjoyments\nlike the present in the Kingdom of God, it is necessary that we also\nshould discuss the matter with our brother Nepos as if he were still\nalive.\n\nFurther on he adds--\n\n(2) So being in the district of Arsenoe, where, as you know,[181] this\nteaching prevailed long before, so that both schisms and the defection of\nwhole churches have occurred, I called together the presbyters and\nteachers[182] among the brethren in the villages, such of the brethren as\nwished being also present, and invited them publicly to make an\nexamination of the matter. And when some brought forward against me this\nbook as an impregnable weapon and bulwark, I sat with them three days in\nsuccession from dawn till evening and tried to correct the statements\nmade. During which time I was much struck with the steadiness, the desire\nfor truth, the aptness in following an argument and the intelligence\ndisplayed by the brethren, whilst we put our questions and difficulties\nand points of agreement in an orderly and reasonable manner, avoiding the\nmistake of holding jealously at any cost to what we had once thought,\neven though it should now be shown to be wrong, and yet not suppressing\nwhat we had to say on the other side, but, as far as possible, attempting\nto grapple with and master the propositions in hand without being ashamed\nto change one's opinion and yield assent if the argument convinced us;\nconscientiously and unfeignedly, with hearts spread open before God,\naccepting what was established by the exposition and teaching of the holy\nScriptures.\n\nAt last the champion and mouthpiece of this doctrine, the man called\nCoracion,[183] in the hearing of all the brethren that were present\nagreed and testified to us that he would no longer adhere to it nor\ndiscourse upon it nor yet mention nor teach it, on the ground that he had\nbeen convinced by what had been said against it. And of the rest of the\nbrethren some rejoiced at the conference and the reconciliation and\nharmonious arrangement which was brought about by it between all parties.\n\nFurther on he says this about the Revelation of John--\n\n(3) Certain people[184] therefore before now discredited and altogether\nrepudiated the book, both examining it chapter by chapter and declaring\nit unintelligible and inconclusive and that it makes a false statement in\nits title.[185] For they say it is not John's, no nor yet a \"Revelation,\"\nbecause of the heavy, thick veil of obscurity which covers it:[186] and\nnot only is the author of this book not one of the Apostles but he is not\neven one of the saints nor a churchman at all;[187] it is Cerinthus,[188]\nthe founder of the heresy that was called Cerinthian from him, and he\ndesired to attribute his own composition to a name that would carry\nweight. For the substance of his teaching was this, that Christ's Kingdom\nwill be on earth, and he dreams that it will be concerned with things\nafter which he himself, being fond of bodily pleasures and very sensual,\nhankered, such as the satisfying of his belly and lower lusts, that is\neating and drinking and marrying and such means as he thought would\nprovide him more decorously with these pleasures, feasts and sacrifices\nand the slaying of victims. I should not myself venture to reject the\nbook, seeing that many brethren hold it in high esteem, but, reckoning\nthe decision about it to be beyond my powers of mind, I consider the\ninterpreting of its various contents to be recondite and matter for much\nwonder. For without fully understanding, I yet surmise that some deeper\nmeaning underlies the words, not measuring and judging them by\ncalculations of my own; but giving the preference to faith,[189] I have\ncome to the conclusion that they are too high for me to comprehend, and\nso I do not reject what I have not taken in, but can only wonder at these\nvisions which I have not even seen (much less understood).\n\nBesides this, after examining the book as a whole and showing that it is\nimpossible to understand it in its literal sense, he proceeds--\n\n(4) So having completed practically the whole prophecy, the prophet[190]\npronounces a blessing on those who keep it and indeed on himself also:\nfor \"blessed,\" saith he, \"is he that observeth the words of the prophecy\nof this book and I John who saw and heard these things.\"[191] That he was\ncalled John, therefore, and that the writing is John's I will not\ndispute. For I agree that it is the work of some holy and inspired person\nbut I should not readily assent to his being the Apostle, the son of\nZebedee, the brother of James, whose is the Gospel entitled \"According to\nJohn\" and the General Epistle.[192] For I conclude that he is not the\nsame (1) from the character of each, (2) from the style of the language\nand (3) from what may be called the arrangement of the book. For the\nEvangelist nowhere inserts his name nor yet proclaims himself either in\nthe Gospel or in the Epistle....\n\n(5) But John nowhere speaks either in the first or in the third person\nabout himself, whereas he that wrote the Revelation straightway at the\nbeginning puts himself forward: \"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he\ngave him to show to his servants speedily, and he sent and signified (it)\nby his angel to his servant John who bare witness of the word of God and\nof his testimony, even of all things that he saw.\"[193]\n\nThen he also writes an Epistle: \"John to the seven churches that are in\nAsia, grace to you and peace.\"[194] Whereas the Evangelist did not put\nhis name even at the head of the Catholic Epistle but began with the\nmystery of the Divine revelation[195] without any superfluous words:\n\"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have\nseen with our eyes.\"[196]\n\nFor it is over this revelation that the Lord also pronounced Peter\nblessed, saying: \"Blessed art thou Simon bar Jona, because flesh and\nblood did not reveal it to thee, but my heavenly Father.\"[197] Nay, even\nin the second and third extant Epistles of John, short though they are,\nJohn does not appear by name but he writes himself \"the elder\"\nanonymously. Whereas our author did not even consider it sufficient to\nmention himself by name once and then proceed with his subject, but he\nrepeats the name again, \"I John, your brother and partaker with you in\nthe tribulation and kingdom and in the patience of Jesus, was in the isle\nthat is called Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of\nJesus.\"[198] In fact, at the end also he says this: \"Blessed is he that\nobserveth the words of the prophecy of this book and I John who saw and\nheard these things.\"[199] That he which wrote these things, therefore, is\nJohn, we must believe as he says so: but which John is not clear. For he\ndoes not say, as in many places in the Gospel, that he is the disciple\nbeloved of the Lord, nor the one that reclined on His breast, nor yet the\nbrother of James, nor yet the one that was the eyewitness and hearer of\nthe Lord. Surely he would have used one of the aforesaid descriptions,\nwhen desirous of clearly identifying himself. And yet he does nothing of\nthe kind, but calls himself our brother and partaker with us, and witness\nof Jesus and blessed for the seeing and hearing of the revelations. I\nsuppose that many bore the same name as John the Apostle, who by reason\nof their love towards him and from their admiration and emulation of him\nand desire to be loved by the Lord like him, were glad to bear the same\nname with him, even as many a one among the children of the faithful is\ncalled Paul or Peter.[200] There is then another John also in the Acts of\nthe Apostles, the one called Mark whom Barnabas and Paul took with them\nand of whom it says again: \"And they had John as their attendant.\"[201]\nBut as to whether he is the writer, I should say no. For it is not\nwritten that he arrived in Asia with them, but \"Paul and his company,\" it\nsays, \"set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John\ndeparted from them and returned to Jerusalem.\"[202] And I think there was\nyet another among those who were in Asia, since they say there were two\ntombs in Ephesus and each of them are said to be the tomb of John.[203]\n\nAgain, from the thoughts and from the actual words and their arrangement\nthis John may be reasonably reckoned different from the other.[204] For\nthe Gospel and the Epistle agree with each other and begin in a similar\nway. The one says \"In the beginning was the Word:\" and the other \"That\nwhich was from the beginning.\" The one says \"And the Word became flesh\nand tabernacled in us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the\nOnly-begotten from the Father:\" the other uses the same or almost\nequivalent expressions, \"That which we have heard, that which we have\nseen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands handled concerning\nthe Word of Life, and the Life was manifested.\"[205] For he starts in\nthis way because he is dealing, as he shows in what follows, with those\nwho say that the Lord has not come in the flesh.[206] For which reason he\nis careful to add also: \"And we have seen and bear witness and announce\nunto you the eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested\nunto us. That which we have seen and heard we announce also unto\nyou.\"[207] He is consistent with himself and does not diverge from his\nown propositions, but treats them throughout under the same heads and in\nthe same terms, of which we will briefly recall; for instance, the\nattentive reader will find in each book frequent mention of the Life, the\nLight, the turning from darkness,[208] constant reference to the Truth,\nGrace, Joy, the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord, the Judgment, the\nForgiveness of sins, the Love of God towards us, the command to us to\nlove one another and that we must keep all the commandments: again there\nis the conviction of the world, of the devil, of the antichrist, God's\nadoption of us as Sons, the Faith, which is everywhere required of us,\nthe Father and the Son everywhere: and generally throughout in describing\nthe character of the Gospel and the Epistle one and the same complexion\nis to be observed in both. But the Revelation is quite different from\nthem, foreign, out of touch and affinity with them, not having, one might\nalmost say, one syllable in common. The Epistle contains no reminiscence\nnor subject dealt with in the Revelation nor the Revelation in the\nEpistle (to say nothing of the Gospel), whereas Paul in his Epistles did\ngive some indication even about those revelations which he has not\nactually described.[209]\n\nAnd yet once more one can estimate the difference between the Gospel and\nEpistle and the Revelation[210] from the literary style. For the first\ntwo books are not only written in irreproachable Greek, but are also most\nelegant in their phrases, reasonings and arrangements of expression. No\ntrace can be found in them of barbarous words, faulty construction or\npeculiarities in general. For St. John seems to have possessed both\nwords, the Lord having graciously vouchsafed them to him; viz. both the\nword and knowledge of the word of speech.[211] That this John had seen a\nRevelation and received knowledge and the gift of prophecy,[212] I do not\ndeny, but I observe his dialect and inaccurate Greek style, which employs\nbarbaric idioms and sometimes even faulty constructions, which it is not\nnow necessary to expose. For I have not mentioned this in order to scoff,\nlet no one think so, but simply to point out the dissimilarity of the\nwritings.\n\n\n                              \"On Nature\"\n                    (Eus., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._ xiv. 23-7)\n\n(1) How shall we bear with them when they say that the wise and, for that\nreason, the good productions of Creation are the results of chance\ncoincidences?[213] Each of which as it came into being by itself appeared\nto Him that ordered it to be good and all of them together equally so.\n\nFor God \"saw,\" it says, \"all things that he had made, and behold they\nwere very good.\"[214] And yet they take no warning from the small,\nordinary instances at their feet, from which they may learn[215] that no\nnecessary and profitable work is produced without design or haphazard,\nbut is adapted to its proper purpose by handiwork, whereas when it falls\ninto a useless and unprofitable state, it then breaks up and comes to\npieces indefinite, and, as it chances, because the wisdom which was\nconcerned in its construction no longer superintends and directs it. For\na garment is not woven by the woof standing up without a weaver, nor yet\nby the warp weaving itself of its own accord: but when it is becoming\nworn out, the torn rags fall asunder. And a house or a city is built not\nby receiving certain stones which volunteer for the foundations and\nothers which jump into the courses of the walls, but because the builder\nbrings the stones that fit in the proper order: but when the building is\nthrown down, each stone falls to the ground just as it may. So, too, when\na ship is being built, the keel does not set itself below, while the mast\nraises itself in the middle and each of the other timbers takes the place\nwhich it chances to of itself. Nor, again, do the planks of a wagon--said\nto be 100[216] in number--become fixed in the position which each found\nempty; but the builder in each case puts the timber together suitably.\nBut if the ship, when it went upon the sea, or the wagon, when it was\ndriven along on land, comes to pieces, the timbers are scattered wherever\nit may happen--in the one case by the waves, in the other by the violent\nrush.\n\nIn the same way it would befit them to say that the atoms also which are\ninoperative when they are at rest and not worked by hands, are also\nuseless when they move at random.[217] For let these opponents of ours\nlook to these viewless atoms of theirs and apply their minds to these\nmindless ones, not like the Psalmist who confesses that this was revealed\nto him by God alone: \"Mine eyes beheld thy unfinished work.\"[218] So,\ntoo, when they say that those fine webs which they speak of as being\nproduced from atoms, are self-wrought by them without skill or sensation,\nwho can bear to hear of these weaver atoms whom even the spider excels in\nskill when he spins his web out of himself.[219]\n\n(2) Who, then, is it that discriminates between the atoms, gathering or\nscattering them, and arranging some in this way to make the sun and\nothers in that way for the moon, and putting each of them together\naccording to the light-giving power of each star? For the particular\nnumber and kind that made the sun by being united in a particular way\nwould never have condescended to produce the moon, nor would the\nintertwinings of the moon atoms have ever become the sun. Moreover, even\nArcturus, bright as he is, would never plume himself on having the atoms\nof Lucifer, nor the Pleiads those of Orion. For Paul has well\ndistinguished when he says: \"There is one glory of the sun, and another\nglory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for star differeth\nfrom star in glory.\"[220] And if the combination of the atoms, as being\nsoulless, was unintelligent, they needed an intelligent artist to put\nthem together: and if their junction was without purpose and the result\nof necessity, they being void of reason, some wise herdsman drove them\ntogether and presided over them: and if they have been linked together\nvoluntarily to do willing service, some wonderful master-craftsman\nassigned them their parts and took the lead; or, like an expert general,\nhe did not leave his army disordered and all in a muddle, but disposed\nthe cavalry in one part and the heavy armed troops apart, and the javelin\nmen by themselves and the slingers where they ought to be, in order that\nthose who carried the same weapon might help one another. And if they\nthink this illustration ridiculous because in it I make a comparison of\ngreat bodies with small, we will come down to the very smallest.\n\n[Eusebius's extract breaks off here.]\n\n(3) If the atoms have no ruler over them, to speak to them or to choose\nor to arrange them, but they move, settling themselves of their own\naccord out of the big rushing tumult and producing a big uproar as they\nclash together, like coming to like without the Divine intervention of\nwhich the poet speaks,[221] and if they run and herd together,\nrecognizing their kinsfolk, truly the republic of the atoms is a\nmarvellous one, friends greeting and embracing one another and hasting to\ntake up their abode in one habitation: some have rounded themselves off\nspontaneously into the sun, that mighty orb, that they may produce the\nday, and some perchance have flared up into the many pyramids[222] of\nstars that they may encircle the whole expanse of sky, while others are\nranged around it, in order that they may--albeit undesignedly--form the\nfirmament[223] and arch the atmosphere over for the graduated ascent of\nthe stars, and that the confederation of these helter-skelter atoms may\nchoose their abodes and apportion the sky as homes and stations for\nthemselves.\n\n\n(4) So far are these deniers of Divine Providence from comprehending the\ninvisible parts of the universe that they do not even see what is\nvisible. For they appear not even to consider the ordered risings and\nsettings of the sun, conspicuous though they be, let alone those of the\nother heavenly bodies; nor yet to appreciate the assistance thus given to\nmankind through them, the day being lighted up for work and the night\nbeing darkened for rest. For man shall go forth, it says, to his work and\nhis labour until the evening.[224] But they do not even take note of its\nother[225] revolution, by which it brings about the fixed times and fair\nseasons and the regular winter and summer solstices, under guidance of\nits component atoms. Yet however much these poor creatures dislike it, it\nis as the righteous[226] believe: Great is the Lord that made him: and at\nHis word he hasteneth his course.[227] Do atoms, ye blind, bring you\nwinter and rains, in order that the earth may produce food for you and\nall the animals upon it? do they introduce summer that ye may receive for\nyour enjoyment the fruits of the trees also? then why do you not bow down\nand sacrifice to the atoms that are the guardians of earth's fruits?\nungrateful truly ye are, never offering them the smallest firstfruits of\nthe many gifts ye have from them.\n\n(5) The many-tribed and much-mixed populace of the stars which the\nmuch-roving and ever-scattered atoms composed have (they say) apportioned\namong themselves their places according to agreement, setting up, as it\nwere, a colony or a community,[228] without any founder or controller\ntaking the lead over them: and they observe the duties of\n_neighbourliness_ to one another by compact and peacably, not\ntransgressing the original bounds which they accepted, as if they were\nunder the jurisdiction of such atoms as had regal power. But the atoms do\nnot rule; how could they, being of no account? Nay, listen to the Divine\nannouncement ({logia}): \"In the judgment of the Lord are his works from\nthe beginning; and from the making of them he disposed the parts thereof.\nHe garnished his works for ever and the beginnings of them unto their\ngeneration.\"[229]\n\n\n(6) What well-ordered phalanx ever traversed an earthly plain, no one\nstepping in front of others, nor falling out of the ranks, nor\nobstructing his comrades, nor falling behind them, in the way that the\nstars advance ever in regular order, shield locked in shield--that\ncontinuous, unwavering, unencumbered and unembarrassed host? Yet certain\nobscure deviations (we are told) arise among them through clashings and\nsideward motions:[230] and that they who devote themselves to their study\ncan always tell the seasons and foresee the positions at which they will\nrise. Let, then, these cutters[231] of the uncuttable and dividers of the\nindivisible and combiners of the uncombined and discerners of the\ninfinite tell us by what means occurs the encompassing journey round the\nheavens in company? it cannot be because a single combination of atoms\nhas been without purpose hurled as from a sling in this way, seeing that\nthe whole encircling band goes on its regular rhythmic way and whirls\naround together; by what means those multitudinous fellow-voyagers\nproceed in company albeit they are without arrangement or purpose and\nunknown to one another? Well did the prophet include amongst things\nimpossible and undemonstrable that two strangers should run in company:\nShall two walk at all together, he says, unless they are acquainted?[232]\n\n\n(7) (That to work is not toilsome to God.)\n\nTo work and to administer and to benefit and to provide and the like are\nperchance vexatious to the idle and thoughtless and feeble and\niniquitous, amongst whom Epicurus enrolled himself, when he conceived\nsuch ideas about the gods. But to the earnest and capable and intelligent\nand sober-minded, such as those who love wisdom (or philosophers) ought\nto be (and how much more the gods?), they are not only not unpleasing and\nirksome but rather most delightful and of all things most agreeable; for\nnegligence and delay in doing something useful is a reproach to them, as\nthe poet[233] warns them,[234] when he counsels: \"Put not off till the\nmorrow,\" and further threatens them: \"He that procrastinates hath ever to\nstruggle against disasters,\" while the prophet[235] instructs us still\nmore solemnly when he says that virtuous deeds are truly godlike, but he\nthat despises them is detestable: \"for,\" saith he, \"cursed be he that\ndoeth the works of the Lord negligently.\" Consequently, while those who\nare untaught in any craft and are imperfect from want of practice and\nfamiliarity with the processes do find toil involved in their endeavours,\nthose who make progress in it, and still more those who have reached\nperfection, are cheered by their easy success in what they aim at, and\nwould rather accomplish and bring to completion the tasks they are\naccustomed to than have all the good things of mankind. At all events,\nDemocritus himself, so they say, used to maintain that he would rather\ndiscover a single reason for a fact than gain the Persian kingdom;[236]\nand that though he seeks his reasons so vainly and unreasonably, starting\nas it were from a void beginning and a roving hypothesis and not\nobserving that fundamental Necessity[237] which is common to the nature\nof things existent, but considering his conception of senseless and\nmindless contingencies to be the highest wisdom of setting up Chance as\nthe mistress and queen of things universal and even of things divine, and\nmaintaining that all things occur through her, and yet warning her off\nfrom matters of human life and conduct and accusing those who give her\nprecedence there to be devoid of judgment. At all events, at the\nbeginning of the \"Precepts,\"[238] he says: \"Men have fashioned the figure\nof Chance, as a cloke for their own folly: for by nature chance fights\nagainst judgement.\" Thus they (the Epicureans) have said that this very\nChance, the great enemy of intelligence, yet has the mastery over it; or,\nrather, by utterly uprooting and abolishing the one, they set up the\nother in its place: for they sing not of intelligence as happy, but of\nchance as the equivalent of intelligence.[239] So, then, those who\nsuperintend works of beneficence pride themselves in measures which\nadvance the interests of their kind, some as rearers of families, some as\ndirectors of institutions, some as healers of men's bodies, some as\nministers of state, yes, and those who love wisdom (philosophers) and try\nhard to instruct their fellows, likewise give themselves great\nairs--unless Epicurus or Democritus will venture to maintain that\nphilosophizing is mere vexation of spirit: but surely there is no\npleasure they would prefer to it. For even though they reckon pleasure to\nbe the absolute good, yet they will be ashamed to say that to\nphilosophize (seek wisdom) is not one of the higher forms of\npleasure.[240] And as to the gods, about whom the poets among them sing\nas \"givers of good gifts\"[241] and these philosophers combine respect\nwith banter,--the gods neither give nor partake of any good things. And\nin what manner do they find evidence that gods exist? for they do not see\nthem before their eyes doing anything (even as those who admired the sun\nand the moon and the stars said they were called gods ({theoi}) because\nthey run ({theein}) their course); nor do they attribute to them any\ncreative or constructive powers, in order that they make them gods from\nthe word {theinai} (set, _i. e._ make):[242] and on that ground the Maker\nand Creator of all things is truly the only God; nor do they put forward\ntheir management or jurisdiction or favours towards men, in order that we\nmay be induced to worship them from motives of fear or reverence.\n\n\n                        \"Refutation and Defence\"\n                     (Eus., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._ vii. 19)\n\n(1) They are not pious, who hand over matter to God as a thing without\nbeginning for His orderly disposition,[243] maintaining that, being\nsubject to treatment and change, it yields to the modifications imposed\nby God. For they should explain how both the like and the unlike belong\nboth to God and to matter. For some one must be imagined superior to\neither,[244] and that may not be entertained about God. For whence came\nit that there is in them both the being without beginning, which is what\nis said to be \"like\" in both and which is also conceived of as different\nfrom both?[245] For if God is of Himself without beginning and the being\nwithout beginning is, as some would say, His very essence, matter will\nnot be without beginning, too: for matter and God are not identical. But,\nif each is what it is independently, and to both belongs in addition the\nproperty of being without beginning, it is clear that the being without\nbeginning is different from either and older and higher than both. And\nthus the difference between their opposing states is entirely subversive\nof their co-existence, or rather of the one, viz. matter existing of\nitself. Otherwise let them state the reason why, both being without\nbeginning, God is not subject to treatment, unchangeable, immovable,\nproductive, and matter is the opposite, subject to treatment, changeable,\nmobile, varying.\n\nAgain, how is it that God and matter came in contact and combined? Was it\nthat God adapted Himself to match the nature of matter and exercised His\ncraft upon it? Nay, that is absurd that God, like men, should work in\ngold and stone and busy Himself in the other handicrafts which the\nvarious materials can give shape and form to.[246]\n\nBut if God endowed matter with the qualities which He in His own wisdom\ndetermined, impressing on it as with a seal the multiform and diverse\nshape and fashion of His own workmanship, this account of it is both\nproper and true, and yet further proves that God, who is the fundamental\nprinciple on which the universe exists, is without beginning. For to its\nbeing (according to them) without beginning God add its bearing certain\nqualities. So, then, there is still much to be said in answer to these\nviews, but we do not propose to say it now. Nevertheless they are\nexpressed with more propriety than those who are absolutely atheistical\npolytheists.[247]\n\n\n(2) (Athan., _de sent. Dion._, 18). However, when I spoke of certain\nthings that had an origin ({gen\u00eata}) and certain things that were made\n({poi\u00eata}), I did indeed casually mention examples of such things,\nrecognizing that they were not altogether useful for my purpose: for\ninstance, I said that neither was the plant the same as the husbandman,\nnor the boat as the shipwright. But afterwards I dwelt at length on those\nwhich were more to the point and cognate to the subject, and went more\ninto detail about these truer examples, seeking out various additional\nevidences which I set out for you[248] also in another letter: and in\nthem I refuted as false the accusation also which they bring against me,\nas not stating that Christ is of one substance ({homoousios})[249] with\nthe Father. For even if I say[250] that this word is not found nor read\nanywhere in Holy Writ, yet these later attempts of mine to explain which\nthey have ignored are not inconsistent with this conception. For I\ncompared human generation, which is clearly a transmission of the\nparents' own nature ({homogen\u00eas}), saying that the parents were different\nfrom their children in this single point, that they were not themselves\nthe children: or else it must needs be that neither parents nor children\nshould exist. The letter itself I cannot, as I have said before, owing to\ncircumstances,[251] lay my hand on: otherwise I would have sent you my\nexact words, or rather a copy of the whole letter: and I will do so, if I\nhave the opportunity. But I know from memory that I added several\nillustrations from things kindred to one another: for instance, I said\nthat a plant coming up from a seed or a root was different from that\nwhence it sprang and yet was absolutely of one nature ({homophyes}) with\nit: and a river flowing from a source partakes of a different shape and\nname; for neither is the source called river nor the river source, and\nboth these things exist,[252] and the source is, in a sense, the father\nand the river is the water from the source. But these and similar remarks\nthey pretend never to have seen written, but act as if they were blind.\nThey only try to pelt me from afar[253] with those poor ill-fitting\nphrases of mine[254] as with stones, failing to recognize that where a\nsubject is obscure and requires to be brought within our understanding,\nnot only do diverse but even quite contradictory illustrations convey the\nmeaning sought for.\n\n(3) (_Ibid._, 17.) It has been already said that God is the Fountain of\nall good things: and the Son is described[255] as the stream flowing\nforth from Him. For the Word is \"the effluence\" of mind, and, to use\nhuman phraseology, is conveyed from the heart through the mouth, _i. e._\nthe mind that finds expression by means of the tongue, being\ndifferentiated from the word in the heart. For the one having sent it\nforth remains and is still what it was; but the other being sent forth\nissues and is carried in all directions: and thus each is in each, being\ndifferent one from the other: and they are one, being two. And it was in\nthis way that the Father and the Son also were said to be one and in one\nanother.[256]\n\nEach of the titles employed by me is indivisible and inseparable from its\nneighbour. I spoke of the Father, and before introducing the Son I\nimplied Him, too, in the Father. I introduced the Son: even if I had not\nalready mentioned the Father He would, of course, have been presupposed\nin the Son. I added the Holy Spirit: but at the same time I intimated\nboth from Whom and through Whom[257] He came. But they are not aware that\nthe Father is not separated from the Son _qua_ Father--for the title\n(Father) is suggestive of such connexion (as Son with Father)--nor is the\nSon cut off from the Father; for the appellation \"Father\" denotes their\ncommon bond. And the Spirit is the object of their dealings,[258] being\nincapable of desertion by either Him that sends, or Him that conveys. How\nthen can I, who use these titles, hold that They are wholly divided and\nseparated?[259]\n\n\n(4) (_Ibid._, 23). For, as our mind overflows with speech[260] of itself,\nas says the prophet: \"My heart overfloweth with good speech,\"[261] and\neach is diverse from the other, each occupying its proper place distinct\nfrom the other, the one dwelling and moving in the heart and the other on\nthe tongue and in the mouth, and yet they are not entirely unconnected\nnor deprived of one another; the mind is not speechless, nor the speech\nmindless, but the mind produces the speech, revealing itself thereby; and\nthe speech shows the mind, having been gendered therein; the mind is, as\nit were, the inlying speech and the speech is the issuing mind; the mind\nis transferred into the speech and the speech displays[262] the mind to\nthe hearers; and thus the mind through the speech gains a lodgment in the\nsouls of those that hear, entering together with the speech, and the mind\nis, as it were, the father of the speech, having an independent existence\nwithal; and the speech is, as it were, the son of the mind, being an\nimpossibility prior to the mind, yet brought into association with it\nfrom any outside source, but springing from the mind; even so the Father,\nwho is the Almighty and Universal Mind, has the Son, the Word as the\nInterpreter and Messenger of Himself.\n\n\n\n\n                       Additional Note to p. 12.\n\n\nJerome (in his letter _ad Evangelum_) is responsible for the assertion\nthat Dionysius was the last who, in accordance with the original custom\nof the Church of Alexandria, was nominated as Bishop by his\nfellow-presbyters there. Subsequently the Bishop was chosen (at least in\ntheory) by the whole body of the faithful in the diocese, as in other\nparts of Christendom. Jerome's words do not seem to include consecration\nalso by a fresh laying of hands by the presbytery, though Bishop\nLightfoot (_Philippians_, p. 231) inferred from certain other evidence of\na not very decisive kind that this was the case and that it was rendered\nnecessary at first by the Bishop of Alexandria having had no other\nBishops with him in Egypt until 190. Others hold that no fresh laying on\nof hands at all had been considered necessary, which is hardly probable.\nMr. C. H. Turner (_Cambridge Medieval History_, vol. i.) has suggested\nthat Jerome was misled by Arians who had their own interests to serve in\nmaking the assertion, while he himself was too ready to credit it in his\nzeal to uphold the presbyterate against the arrogant claims of the Roman\ndeacons at that time. The present writer ventures to think that Jerome's\nstatement, if correct, refers only to nomination and that an episcopal\nconsecrator had been found elsewhere (_e. g._ in Africa or Palestine or\nSyria) for the laying on of hands as usual.\n\n\n\n\n                               FOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]In one of Eusebius's works (the _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_) he is quoted\n   side by side with great authors like Plato and Aristotle.\n\n[2]Most of those who read this will be aware that {pais} (Lat. _puer_)\n   can be used in various senses, like our \"boy\" and French _gar\u00e7on_.\n\n[3]Not the Prefect of Egypt of that name mentioned by Dionysius on p. 46,\n   though he did afterwards try to usurp the throne (see p. 16).\n\n[4]For Dionysius's share in this dispute see his letter on p. 50.\n\n[5]Dionysius's phrase about him on p. 66 is \"tutor and chief ruler of\n   Egyptian magicians\"; see note 3 _in loco_.\n\n[6]This \u00c6milianus was one of several who afterwards attempted to seize\n   the throne; see above, p. 14. Macrianus was another of them in Egypt\n   (p. 68, _n._).\n\n[7]The office indicated seems to be the same as that of _Rationalis_\n   mentioned above on p. 16.\n\n[8]I was much assisted in drawing up this summary of {peri Physe\u00f4s} and\n   also in writing the notes upon the extracts from the text by Professor\n   H. Jackson, of Cambridge fame.\n\n[9]The particular passage, however, adduced by Procopius above is Gen.\n   iii. 21.\n\n[10]On this point C. H. Turner's article in Hastings's _Dictionary of the\n   Bible_, Vol. V, pp. 496 f. (on Patristic Commentaries), may be\n   consulted.\n\n[11]The passage on Luke xxii, quoted by Dr. Sanday (_Inspiration_, p.\n   36), is of very doubtful authenticity.\n\n[12]\"Martyr\" in this case need not necessarily be taken strictly as\n   meaning \"one put to death for the Faith,\" though no doubt the medi\u00e6val\n   tradition was in favour of his martyrdom in that sense.\n\n[13]It looks as if Dionysius was afraid to mention his name. Perhaps it\n   was Sabinus the Prefect. The word \"poet\" in Greek means properly\n   \"maker,\" and there is evidently a _double entendre_ in its use here.\n\n[14]_i. e._ against Christ (1 Cor. xii. 3).\n\n[15]The reference is to Heb. x. 34. It will be noticed that Dionysius\n   attributes this Epistle to S. Paul, either inadvertently or in\n   accordance with the Alexandrine tradition, which Origen also accepts\n   (Eus., _H. E._, vi. 25).\n\n[16]Viz. the revolt of Decius in Oct. 249.\n\n[17]_i. e._ Philip the Arabian, who was popularly supposed to be half a\n   Christian.\n\n[18]The reference is obviously to Matt. xxiv. 24 (Mark xiii. 22) though\n   Dionysius has substituted \"cause to stumble\" ({skandalisai}) for\n   \"cause to go astray\" ({plan\u00easai} or {apoplanan}).\n\n[19]The reference is very loosely to Matt. xix. 23 and 25.\n\n[20]Viz. those who held no prominent position; the ordinary folk.\n\n[21]Cp. Gal. ii. 9.\n\n[22]Cp. Acts xxviii. 23 and Rev. i. 9.\n\n[23]There is evidently an allusion here to Matt. v. 11 and Luke vi. 22.\n\n[24]Viz. the _ungul\u00e6_, with which the flesh was torn from the bones.\n\n[25]Only three are mentioned in the text.\n\n[26]_i. e._ some time between 251, when persecution ended with the death\n   of Decius, and 257, when Valerian revived it.\n\n[27]The first was a martial offence, the second a civil.\n\n[28]_i. e._ by being allowed to follow Christ's example.\n\n[29]This was the _catasta_, or platform, which corresponded to our\n   prisoner's dock.\n\n[30]Dionysius's language recalls 2 Cor. ii. 14; Col. ii. 15 is different.\n\n[31]Cf. Heb. xi. 38.\n\n[32]_i. e._ they showed themselves worthy of being among the elect.\n\n[33]A range of hills to the east of the Nile seems to have been so\n   called.\n\n[34]On the marriage of the clergy at this time, see Bingham, _Antiq._,\n   IV, v. [S] 5.\n\n[35]This is probably the earliest extant mention of the Saracens--at\n   least by that name.\n\n[36]The opinion that the martyrs passed at once to heaven and shared His\n   throne was general among the early Fathers (see Matt. xix. 28 and 1\n   Cor. vi. 2, 3).\n\n[37]Cp. Ezek. xviii. 23, xxxiii. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n\n[38]These expressions are not to be pressed as if they assumed episcopal\n   authority.\n\n[39]Cp. Gal. i. 20.\n\n[40]_i. e._ in October 249.\n\n[41]The Prefect of Egypt.\n\n[42]This was a kind of soldier employed on secret service by the emperors\n   and their provincial governors.\n\n[43]Probably his sons, though they might be his pupils or his servants.\n\n[44]One of \"the boys.\"\n\n[45]Whether Timotheus was making off to join Dionysius or was fleeing in\n   another direction is not clear.\n\n[46]Cp. Mark xiv. 52.\n\n[47]Dionysius's language here recalls 2 Cor. xi. 1, 17, 21 and xii. 6,\n   11.\n\n[48]Viz. Tobit xii. 7, where the best attested reading is \"to reveal\n   gloriously,\" instead of \"(it is) glorious to reveal.\"\n\n[49]The Prefect of Egypt at that time.\n\n[50]Though Dionysius was Bishop, it is noticeable that he still\n   associates himself with the presbyterate here and elsewhere; cp. 1\n   Pet. v. 1, etc.\n\n[51]Acts v. 29.\n\n[52]Marcellus seems to be the \"brother from Rome\" mentioned above, and\n   Eusebius is not now mentioned.\n\n[53]The word \"also\" either refers to the imperial edict or suggests that\n   some written communication had been sent.\n\n[54]Viz. Valerian and his son Gallienus.\n\n[55]Cp. 1 Tim. ii. 2; this laudable custom is often referred to in early\n   Christian writings.\n\n[56]This restriction was constantly enforced by persecuting emperors,\n   because the graves of martyrs were a favourite resort for prayer and\n   worship. The word cemetery (=sleeping-place) was introduced by\n   Christians for graveyards.\n\n[57]This is an indignant protest against Germanus's charges.\n\n[58]1 Cor. xv. 3.\n\n[59]Col. iv. 3.\n\n[60]Cp. Acts xii. 25.\n\n[61]The brethren who lived on the outskirts of a city like Alexandria\n   were not bound to attend the mother church, but had as it were chapels\n   of ease in their own vicinities.\n\n[62]Or perhaps \"carried on\" (to act as thou didst).\n\n[63]Strictly speaking, Novatian's withdrawal was not very likely to\n   involve actual martyrdom.\n\n[64]The word is {katorth\u00f4ma} (success); perhaps \"recovery\" would bring\n   out the antithesis to \"fall\" ({sphalma}) better.\n\n[65]Gen. xix. 17 (LXX).\n\n[66]Another reading gives \"blessed\" ({makarios}), which, though less well\n   supported by the MSS., makes the phrase {makari\u00f4s anepausato} more\n   pointed.\n\n[67]This expression probably means to include the Churches of Mesopotamia\n   and Osroene, besides those which he proceeds to mention below.\n\n[68]Eusebius is mistaken in identifying this peace with the cessation of\n   persecution: the reference is to the subsiding of the Novatianist\n   schism in 254 which restored peace to Christendom. The surprise and\n   joy were due to the violence of the language and other measures which\n   the chief combatants (Stephen and Cyprian) had employed.\n\n[69]Hadrian's colony in Mount Sion was so named (A.D. 132). Later on the\n   older and more glorious name of Jerusalem was restored to the see.\n\n[70]Bishop of C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia (+ A.D. 260), and one of Origen's\n   distinguished pupils. On the baptismal controversy he sided with\n   Cyprian of Carthage.\n\n[71]The adroit reference to the wonted liberality of the Roman Church is\n   to be noted: other instances are given by Salmon, _Infallibility_, p.\n   375.\n\n[72]Here again Dionysius shows his adroitness, if Benson (_Cyprian_, p.\n   357) is right in thinking that the list of churches he gives suggests\n   a repetition of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Ghost (Acts ii.\n   9 f.).\n\n[73]Cp. the letter to Dionysius, p. 58.\n\n[74]Lev. xxiv. 13-16.\n\n[75]The word here used represents {myst\u00earion}, denoting the Christian\n   revelation as {myst\u00earion} often does.\n\n[76]Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22 and Gal. i. 8, 9.\n\n[77]The former are converts from heathenism, or perhaps from heresy; the\n   latter Christians who have lapsed.\n\n[78]The word here is the Greek {cheirotonia} in Syriac letters, and so\n   might also be rendered \"ordination.\"\n\n[79]The MSS. from which this extract comes state that it is from a letter\n   to Dionysius and Stephanus of Rome. No such letter is otherwise known,\n   and it is not likely that Stephen's name would come second, as he was\n   then bishop and Dionysius only a presbyter, though later on he became\n   bishop. Possibly it is from the letter which our Dionysius tells us he\n   wrote to his Roman namesake and Philemon when they were of the same\n   opinion as Stephen: see p. 55. As far as the contents of the extract\n   go, it is not at all incredible that Dionysius was willing to admit\n   the validity of such baptisms as are specified: it was only heresies\n   of a very fundamental kind which he considered to invalidate baptism.\n\n[80]The successor to Stephanus in 257 as Bishop of Rome: he was martyred\n   after one year's reign.\n\n[81]This was, according to Benson (_Cyprian_, p. 354), a threat which he\n   did not actually carry into effect, and was only meant to restrain\n   them from adopting Cyprian's attitude on the matter.\n\n[82]_i. e._ those of Iconium and Synnada (_circ._ 230): Dionysius may\n   also be referring to the three much more recent councils which Cyprian\n   had held at Carthage between 254 and 256 (_i. e._ since his letter to\n   Stephen above). By this time he had by patient inquiry found out much\n   more than he had known at first of what was necessary to be known\n   before coming to a decision.\n\n[83]_Cf._ 1 Cor. vi. 11 and v. 7, 8.\n\n[84]See note on p. 54. Dionysius became afterwards Bishop of Rome in 259:\n   a fragment of a letter from our Dionysius to him is printed on p. 58.\n   His famous letter to our Dionysius on the Sabellian controversy is not\n   included in this volume. Part of a letter to Philemon is given on p.\n   56. He was a Roman Presbyter.\n\n[85]On the north-west coast of Cyrenaica, one of the five chief cities\n   which gave its name to the Libyan Pentapolis. Sabellius denied the\n   three Persons in the Trinity, and held that the Person of the Father\n   who is One with the Son was incarnate in Christ: see further p. 19.\n\n[86]There seems no doubt that this is the right reading here, though most\n   of the MSS. read \"God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ\"; but\n   clearly Dionysius is only speaking of God the Father in this clause\n   and of Jesus Christ in the next. See 2 Cor. i. 2, Eph. i. 3, etc.\n\n[87]It was Dionysius's treatment of this subject which afterwards gave\n   Arius the heresiarch of Alexandria an opening for claiming his\n   teaching in support of his own tenets, though there is no Arian\n   suggestion, of course, in this phrase: see p. 20.\n\n[88]Col. i. 15.\n\n[89]Eus., _H. E._ vii. 26, mentions letters to Ammonius, Bishop of\n   Bernice, Telesphorus Euphranor and Euporus in this connexion.\n   Athanasius appears only to have known one joint letter to Ammonius and\n   Euphranor.\n\n[90]Dionysius seems to distinguish here two kinds of writings: (1) those\n   that were based on systematic research and criticism, and (2) those\n   that handed on the more traditional and less critical views and\n   statements of the past.\n\n[91]Divine interposition is more vaguely suggested above on p. 44. S.\n   Augustine's statement should also be compared, that at a critical\n   moment of his conversion he heard a voice saying, \"Take and read\"\n   (_Conf._ vii. 12, [S] 29); S. Polycarp likewise heard a voice from\n   heaven saying, \"Be strong and play the man,\" as he was led into the\n   arena.\n\n[92]See Introduction, p. 11.\n\n[93]This is one of the more common apocryphal sayings usually attributed\n   to our Lord: hence the epithet \"apostolic\" is somewhat strange.\n\n[94]The word for \"Father\" here is {papas} (pope), a colloquial form of\n   {pat\u00ear} applied to any bishop (or even to one of the inferior clergy\n   sometimes) in the first ages. For Heraclas see p. 11. It is to be\n   noticed, however, that this canon of his dealt not with heretical\n   baptism (such as Dionysius is dealing with), but with actual or\n   reputed perverts, and stated the terms on which they were to be\n   restored to the Church of their baptism.\n\n[95]_i. e._ the Church in Africa Proconsularis, of which Carthage was the\n   metropolis and Cyprian the metropolitan.\n\n[96]Iconium was the chief city of Lycaonia (see Acts xiii. and xiv.), and\n   Synnada was an important town in Phrygia Salutaris. These synods had\n   been held some twenty-five years before (in A.D. 230).\n\n[97]Deut. xix. 14.\n\n[98]See above, p. 53.\n\n[99]A confession of faith has always been required before baptism: this\n   Novatian virtually ignored by his action.\n\n[100]Here as elsewhere Dionysius shows his breadth of view about God in\n   recognizing that the Holy Spirit might in some measure remain even\n   with the lapsed.\n\n[101]It is strange that so old a believer should never have noticed the\n   difference before, but baptism was almost entirely confined at that\n   time to Easter and Whitsuntide, and he may have always been absent.\n\n[102]Cp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16. The Amen is either that after the Consecration\n   of the Elements or at the Reception of them.\n\n[103]\"Standing\" was, and is still, the posture in the East: Scudamore,\n   _Not. Euch._, p. 637.\n\n[104]A somewhat rare word for \"Altar\" without some descriptive epithet\n   like \"holy\" or \"mystic.\"\n\n[105]The _Consistentes_ were the last order of penitents, who were\n   allowed to remain after the dismissal of the catechumens and other\n   penitents, but did not join in the oblation or communion itself: cf.\n   Canons of Nic\u00e6a, No. xi.\n\n[106]The letter from which this is supposed to be an extract is said by\n   Eusebius (_H. E._ vi. 46, 2) to have been on the subject of\n   Repentance, and may possibly be \"the instruction\" which Dionysius says\n   he had given on p. 42 above.\n\n[107]Viz. under the impression that they were going to die.\n\n[108]_i. e._ after thus pledging ourselves to them.\n\n[109]Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 3, where Ps. xxxiii. (xxxiv.) 9 is quoted.\n\n[110]Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 7, etc.\n\n[111]The reference is to Luke xv. 4 ff. and Ezek. xxxiv. 6, etc.\n\n[112]Dionysius is thinking perhaps of the story in Tobit v. 6, where\n   Raphael becomes the companion of Tobit's son Tobias on his journey.\n\n[113]On the principle that \"charity thinketh no evil ... but hopeth all\n   things\" (1 Cor. xiii.): similar but not identical phrases (in words or\n   sense) are found 1 Cor. xvi. 17, 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9, Phil. ii. 30,\n   and Col. i. 24.\n\n[114]The difficulties of soldiers becoming and remaining Christians were\n   peculiarly great under the early Emperors.\n\n[115]That is, some had not yet been called upon to be actual martyrs,\n   Dionysius among them who was still in exile.\n\n[116]Is. xlix. 8.\n\n[117]These were the same civil officials as those mentioned in Acts vi.\n   20 at Philippi, with their servants, there called lictors\n   ({rhabdouchoi}): the soldiers belonged to the centurion, of course.\n\n[118]This has already been described on p. 44.\n\n[119]Including Timotheus who had been the means of his escape.\n\n[120]A town on the coast 150 miles west of Alexandria.\n\n[121]He and the three deacons have already been mentioned on p. 46. They\n   must have left Dionysius when he went into exile and returned to\n   Alexandria.\n\n[122]\"In the island,\" according to Rufinus's version, but it is not clear\n   what island he means: the pestilence is probably one of those frequent\n   epidemics which devastated North Africa and other districts of the\n   empire.\n\n[123]The epithet \"perfect,\" though applied to believers generally in the\n   New Testament (Matt. v. 28, etc.), was later specially used of\n   martyrs.\n\n[124]Gallus succeeded to the empire on the death of Decius and his sons\n   in 251, and reigned till 253, when it was wrested from him by \u00c6milian,\n   who was in turn ousted by Valerian after four months' rule. Dionysius\n   makes no mention of this episode, though he does of Macrian's attempt\n   later.\n\n[125]The quotation is from Rev. xiii. 5, but the last words follow a\n   reading which has no support in the MSS. It should also be noticed\n   that Dionysius does not think it at all certain that the author of the\n   Revelation is the Evangelist: see p. 86.\n\n[126]Valerian reigned from 253 till his disappearance in 260. The\n   duration of the persecution was forty-two months, from before\n   midsummer 257 till late in 260.\n\n[127]Here the expression means Christians generally, not prophets or\n   clergy as often.\n\n[128]Alexander Severus and Philip the Arabian are no doubt meant.\n\n[129]Compare such expressions in S. Paul's letters as Rom. xvi. 5, 1 Cor.\n   xvi. 11, etc.\n\n[130]No doubt Macrianus is meant, who is mentioned further on, but it is\n   difficult to account for the exact epithets which Dionysius here\n   applies to him. Apparently he had been Valerian's tutor in some kind\n   of magic, and had allied himself somehow with the Jewish colony in\n   Alexandria (hence {archisynag\u00f4gos}), who would, of course, be hostile\n   to the Christians.\n\n[131]Christian exorcists must be meant, though the claim to supernatural\n   powers which Dionysius makes for them is sufficiently remarkable.\n\n[132]This was a frequent charge against the Christians themselves. Here\n   Dionysius turns it against their persecutors in Egypt.\n\n[133]It is very difficult, without a knowledge of Latin and Greek, to\n   understand Dionysius's play on words throughout this section. The\n   office which Macrianus held was that of, in Latin, _Rationalis or\n   Procurator summ\u00e6 rei_, in Greek {ho epi t\u00f4n katholou log\u00f4n} (something\n   like our Chancellor of the Exchequer): hence Dionysius says he was not\n   _rational_ (or reasonable) in his treatment of the Christians and\n   showed no _catholic_ spirit towards them.\n\n[134]Ezek. xiii. 3. Dionysius takes the last phrase ({to katholou}), as\n   if it was the object of the verb, not an adverb, in order to suit his\n   argument.\n\n[135]This may perhaps mean that besides his other faults Macrianus was\n   tainted with the atheistic views of the Epicureans, while Dionysius\n   also alludes in this sentence to the accounts which Macrianus would\n   have to present to the Emperor of his own administration.\n\n[136]Cf. Eph. iv. 6 and Col. i. 17.\n\n[137]Another play on words, as if Macrianus was derived from the Greek\n   {makros} (far off), which is somewhat doubtful.\n\n[138]Is. lxvi. 3, 4 (LXX). Here the reference is to Valerian falling into\n   the hands of Sapor, the Persian King, who inflicted grievous insults\n   upon him, and kept him in captivity till his death.\n\n[139]Macrianus was lame of one leg. After Valerian's defeat and\n   disappearance (in 260), for which he was himself largely responsible,\n   Macrianus and his two sons, Macrianus junior and Quietus, made an\n   abortive attempt to seize the throne, which was soon defeated.\n\n[140]Ex. xx. 5.\n\n[141]The two Macriani were defeated and slain by Aureolus, another\n   usurper, in Illyricum, and Quietus was put to death in the East.\n\n[142]Dionysius is still speaking of Macrianus, who had incited Valerian\n   to attack the Persians, and then had himself attacked Gallienus and\n   tried to usurp the throne.\n\n[143]Is. xlii. 9, but Dionysius has substituted, for the last phrase, a\n   phrase from xliii. 19. The original prophecy applies to the triumph of\n   Cyrus and the conversion of the world to the worship of Jehovah. Its\n   application in the text strikes us to-day as too fanciful.\n\n[144]Whether Gallienus himself was really a Christian is very doubtful,\n   but his wife, Cornelia Salonina, seems to have been.\n\n[145]This is a very obscure calculation, but the upshot of it may be as\n   follows: Gallienus was associated with his father Valerian as Emperor\n   seven years (253-60), then Macrianus usurped the power (in Egypt) for\n   one year, or rather more; thus Gallienus regained the power in his\n   ninth year (_i. e._ after midsummer 261). Gallienus's original Edict\n   of Peace was issued in Oct. 260, but the Rescript applying it to Egypt\n   was delayed for some time. The Easter festival for which this letter\n   was written, therefore, must have been that of 262.\n\n[146]Cf. 1 Cor. v. 8.\n\n[147]Exod. xii. 30.\n\n[148]I have translated the Berlin editor's reading here, as being the\n   least unsatisfactory of those proposed. Others give a text which may\n   be rendered: \"I would this were all: for the things that befell us\n   before drove us into many grievous troubles.\" But the exact meaning is\n   doubtful, however we take it.\n\n[149]This epithet for martyrs has already occurred on p. 64.\n\n[150]This is none other than a quotation from Pericles's speech about the\n   plague at Athens in Thucyd. ii. 64, though in Dionysius's original\n   phrase it sounds as if he meant some local minor historian.\n\n[151]The word Dionysius uses here is the same as S. Paul, uses (1 Cor.\n   iv. 13: {perips\u00eama}, offscouring). It is said to have been used at\n   Athens of the human scapegoats thrown into the river in time of\n   famine: \"Be thou my expiation ({perips\u00eama}).\" Elsewhere it seems to\n   have degenerated into a sort of extravagant compliment: \"I am your\n   humble servant ({perips\u00eama}).\" Dionysius suggests it might regain its\n   more serious meaning in the present case.\n\n[152]Here again Dionysius uses an expression suggested by S. Paul in\n   Phil. iii. 8.\n\n[153]It is not clear whether Dionysius actually alludes here to the\n   well-protected harbours of Alexandria or (more loosely) to the Lake\n   Mareotis: probably to the former, because the canal he refers to in\n   the next sentence (though he calls it a river) was cut from the Nile\n   into one of the harbours and passed at the back of the city between it\n   and the Lake Mareotis.\n\n[154]Cf. Ps. lxxvii. 13, cxxxvi. 4, and Wisd. xi. 4. The whole passage,\n   of course, refers to Exod. xiv. and xvii.\n\n[155]Cf. Exod. vii. 20, 21.\n\n[156]_i. e._ if the biggest river and the ocean itself, as he proceeds\n   exaggeratedly to claim, cannot do so, what other cleansing can there\n   be?\n\n[157]Cf. Gen. ii. 10 ff. Dionysius evidently adopts the later Jewish view\n   that the Gihon was the Nile, \u00c6thiopia (or Cush) being identified with\n   Egypt.\n\n[158]The meaning of the phrase employed by Dionysius here (\"hale old\n   men\") comes from Homer, _Il._ xxiii. 791 (cf. Virg., _\u00c6n._ vi. 304);\n   but elsewhere a very similar phrase seems to suggest \"a cruel,\n   untimely old age.\"\n\n[159]Evidently at Alexandria (the capital of that country which was the\n   chief granary of Rome) either the necessitous citizens or perhaps all\n   between forty and seventy were entitled to receive doles of corn; but\n   now the relief was extended to all ages between fourteen and eighty.\n\n[160]Either the heathen are meant, who ought to tremble and be convinced,\n   or the Christians, who were too courageous through trust in God to\n   tremble.\n\n[161]The last sentence is involved and obscure. I am not sure that my\n   paraphrase rightly expresses the thought.\n\n[162]I have adopted our modern mode of expression, but in the early\n   Church Pascha was often used for the fast which receded Easter as well\n   as for the feast itself, and that is how Dionysius uses it here.\n\n[163]_i. e._ at 3 a.m. on Easter Day, the traditional hour of our Lord's\n   Resurrection, especially in the West.\n\n[164]_i. e._ at 6 p.m. on Easter Eve.\n\n[165]\"All,\" _i. e._ \"who came,\" or perhaps \"all the four evangelists.\"\n   The \"difference\" is not really confined to the time, but to the\n   parties which came, the other devout women coming later than the two\n   Marys.\n\n[166]The four references are to Matt. xxviii. 1, John xx. 1, Luke xxiv.\n   1, and Mark xvi. 2.\n\n[167]Cf. John ix. 5, etc.\n\n[168]The Council _in Trullo_ (A.D. 680) accepted this second meaning and\n   consented to Dionysius's ruling on the point raised without reserve.\n\n[169]Dionysius thinks that S. Matthew's account, with which S. John's\n   tallies, speaks of the two Marys coming to look at the tomb about\n   midnight on Easter eve or morning, while S. Luke and S. Mark mentioned\n   certain women who arrived at the tomb somewhat later, when the sun had\n   just risen, but one at least of the Marys mentioned by S. Matthew is\n   identical with one of those mentioned by S. Mark and apparently by S.\n   Luke. Possibly, however, Dionysius means that the two Marys took part\n   in both visits to the tomb. Dr. Swete on S. Mark and Dr. Westcott on\n   S. John should be consulted by any one who wishes to pursue the\n   question further.\n\n[170]_i. e._ as on the former occasion mentioned by S. Matthew and S.\n   Mark.\n\n[171]The author of this saying (which is equivalent to our proverb, \"A\n   miss is as good as a mile\") is not known. Basil (_de Baptism._ ii. i)\n   quotes something like it, but with a different turn, and he, too,\n   attributes it to \"one of our wise men,\" but perhaps he is only\n   referring to Dionysius in this passage.\n\n[172]Cf. Matt. xiv. 26.\n\n[173]He means the six days of what we call Holy Week, but he gives no\n   indication whether the Lenten fast was then confined to those days in\n   Alexandria and the Pentapolis or lasted longer. By \"equally\" he\n   proceeds to explain is meant the length of the fasting (six days or\n   two, and so on), and by \"similarly\" the manner or degree of it (till\n   cockcrow or till evening).\n\n[174]The verb used ({hypertithenai}, Lat. _superponere_, to exceed) is\n   the technical one for this prolonged fast: the ordinary fast ended at\n   6 p.m. and that of the station days (Wednesday and Friday) at 3 p.m.\n\n[175]Cf. 1 Pet. iii. 8 and Phil. ii. 20.\n\n[176]The expression comes from Acts xiii. 2, where, however, it describes\n   a special act of worship rather than \"ministering\" in general.\n\n[177]Nepos had apparently been Bishop of Arsenoe in Egypt, and was the\n   author of a work ({Elenchos All\u00eagorist\u00f4n}) putting forward grossly\n   material views of the Millennium. Dionysius refuted it in a carefully\n   prepared treatise in two books. This extract is from the second book,\n   and deals chiefly with the authorship of the Revelation of St. John\n   the Divine in a way very characteristic of his large-hearted and\n   broad-minded spirit.\n\n[178]Or Dionysius may mean that he had encouraged the singing of the\n   Psalms in service.\n\n[179]Cf. Tit. ii. 13, 2 Thess. ii. 8, etc.\n\n[180]The reference is to 2 Thess. ii. 1 and 1 John iii. 2.\n\n[181]It does not appear to whom Dionysius addressed this treatise, but he\n   usually did address what he wrote to some particular person.\n\n[182]Here the two offices are conjoined as in 1 Tim. v. 17. The \"teacher\"\n   as an officer of the Church is mentioned in several of the early\n   Church Orders.\n\n[183]Nothing more is known of him: either he had succeeded to the\n   leadership since the death of Nepos, or on this particular occasion\n   took the lead.\n\n[184]The allusion is probably to Gaius of Rome and his school rather than\n   to the Alogi, as they were called, of the East; but both these bodies\n   were strongly opposed to Millenarian views.\n\n[185]If this refers to a formal division into chapters, it disappeared\n   afterwards, for a new division was devised in the sixth century, on\n   which our present system is partly based.\n\n[186]Dionysius plays here on the meaning of the Greek word for\n   Revelation, {apokalypsis}, \"unveiling.\" He is fond of such a device.\n\n[187]If that is the meaning of the words employed, then \"saints\"\n   ({hagioi}) is not used in its New Testament sense for the \"faithful\"\n   generally, but a distinction is made more like the later use of the\n   word for those who attained higher saintliness than the rest; but\n   perhaps the phrase for \"churchmen\" implies \"clerical or ecclesiastical\n   persons,\" and \"saints\" has its earlier sense.\n\n[188]Cerinthus was the earliest exponent of Gnostic views, and as such\n   much abhorred by St. John the Apostle.\n\n[189]_i. e._ reckoning that it is a matter where faith rather than reason\n   should act; or perhaps the translation should be \"giving more weight\n   to (the author's) trustworthiness.\"\n\n[190]This title is to be noticed, as the author himself never actually\n   describes himself by it. Dionysius is much more cautious as to the\n   authorship than Origen, his former master, who attributed the book to\n   St. John the Evangelist without hesitation, according to Eusebius, _H.\n   E._ vi. 25, 9.\n\n[191]Rev. xxii. 7, 8: but Dionysius has no authority for joining the\n   latter clause on to the former, its construction being \"it is I John\n   who saw and heard.\"\n\n[192]_i. e._ the First Epistle of St. John; the second and third were not\n   so described at first and rightly so.\n\n[193]Rev. i. 1, 2. One might almost think Dionysius was quoting from\n   memory, for he follows no extant text in omitting \"God\" before \"gave\"\n   (thus making Jesus Christ the subject and \"him\" = \"to John\") and \"the\n   things which must come to pass\" before \"speedily\": also he substitutes\n   \"his testimony\" for \"the testimony of Jesus Christ,\" though \"his\"\n   still = \"Jesus Christ.\"\n\n[194]Rev. i. 4.\n\n[195]Dionysius seems to contrast the \"Divine revelation\" of the Epistle\n   which we can trust with that of the Book so-called about which he felt\n   less sure.\n\n[196]1 John i. 1.\n\n[197]Matt. xvi. 17. Dionysius substitutes the adjective \"heavenly\" for\n   \"which is in heaven.\"\n\n[198]Rev. i. 9. Here again the text is somewhat inaccurate \"in the\n   patience of Jesus\" having no support elsewhere.\n\n[199]Rev. xxii. 7. See note on p. 86, above.\n\n[200]It would seem likely, but by no means certain, that Dionysius is\n   speaking of strictly baptismal names here. We have very slight grounds\n   for being sure that the custom of connecting the giving of a name at\n   baptism was universal as early as this.\n\n[201]See Acts xii. 25 and xiii. 5.\n\n[202]_Ibid._, xiii. 13.\n\n[203]This assertion is taken almost verbatim from Eus., _H. E._ iii. 39,\n   where a passage is also quoted from Papias in which John the Elder is\n   mentioned as well as John the Apostle among the Lord's disciples.\n\n[204]This is the second argument which Dionysius adduces, but he seems as\n   if he now includes the third with it. See above.\n\n[205]John i. 1, and 1 John i. 1, 2.\n\n[206]Cf. 1 John iv. 2.\n\n[207]_Ibid._, i. 2, 3.\n\n[208]It looks as if this phrase may be a marginal gloss on the Light,\n   which has crept into the text, as it occurs nowhere in the writings of\n   St. John nor elsewhere in the New Testament; but the same might be\n   said of the \"adoption\" below, and one or two others of the other\n   phrases are quite rare in St. John's writings, so that they may be all\n   instances of the thoughts, not the words being identical in the two\n   books.\n\n[209]The reference is to such passages as 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff., Gal. i. 12,\n   ii. 2, etc.\n\n[210]This is the third argument.\n\n[211]A rather forced and fanciful statement. Dionysius appears loosely to\n   refer to 1 Cor. xii. 8, somewhat boldly substituting \"of speech\" ({t\u00eas\n   phrase\u00f4s}) for St. Paul's \"of wisdom.\"\n\n[212]Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 6 and 8.\n\n[213]_i. e._ the results not of design but of the fortuitous intersection\n   of lines of causation.\n\n[214]Gen. i. 31.\n\n[215]The argument appears to be that, as on a small scale design is\n   \"evident in the construction or repairing of a thing but is absent in\n   its decay,\" so the orderly creation and maintenance of the Universe on\n   the large scale implies intelligent direction.\n\n[216]Hesiod (_Works and Days_, 554) is meant, but of course 100 stands\n   here, as elsewhere, for an indefinitely large number.\n\n[217]The point is that movement which is useful suggests design: but as\n   the movement of the atoms is without design, it cannot be useful.\n\n[218]Ps. cxxxviii. (cxxxix.) 16. Dionysius quotes the best text here of\n   LXX, but his application is rather obscure. Apparently he means that\n   the Epicureans claimed to know without either revelation or research\n   what the Psalmist knew only by revelation from God.\n\n[219]Dionysius says that even the spider has more notion of design than\n   the atoms, but the sarcasm is not quite to the point.\n\n[220]1 Cor. xv. 41.\n\n[221]\"God ever brings like to like.\"--Homer, _Od._ xvii. 218, a proverb\n   quoted both by Plato and Aristotle.\n\n[222]Dionysius is probably thinking of Plato's _Tim\u00e6us_ 56B, where the\n   pyramid is said to be the geometrical shape of fire which is the\n   principal constituent of the bodies of the stars (Professor H.\n   Jackson).\n\n[223]Dionysius is here referring to such a passage as Gen. i. 6 ff. No\n   doubt the ancients thought the vault of heaven was solid, enclosing\n   the atmosphere which covers the earth, and that the stars were either\n   fixed upon it or moved in their courses on its surface.\n\n[224]Ps. civ. 23.\n\n[225]_i. e._ the sun's yearly (as opposed to its daily) course.\n\n[226]\"The righteous\" here is a very unusual equivalent for \"the\n   Christians\": it is possible, however, that the translation is:\n   \"however much these men disagree, being but poor creatures, though\n   righteous enough in their own estimate.\"\n\n[227]Ecclus. xliii. 5.\n\n[228]The idea is of some stars being solitary, like a Greek or Roman\n   colony ({apoikia}) with a constitution of its own, and of others\n   grouping themselves into constellations or communities ({synoikia}).\n   The colony had a founder ({oikist\u00eas}), the community or household\n   would have some sort of controller ({oikodespot\u00eas}).\n\n[229]Ecclus. xvi. 26 f.\n\n[230]The natural motion of atoms was downwards, but there was also a\n   slight sideward motion, and when they impinged a motion upwards by\n   blows and tossings, and this produced the shape of things. But\n   Dionysius here says, how is that theory consistent with the orderly\n   march of the stars?\n\n[231]Dionysius here plays on the derivation of {atomoi}, from {temnein}\n   (= to cut).\n\n[232]Amos iii. 3 (LXX). The A.V. and R.V. give the more exact meaning\n   \"agreed\" to the last word.\n\n[233]Hesiod, _Works and Days_, iv. 408 and 411.\n\n[234]Viz. the heathen, to whom the poets were to some extent what the\n   prophets are to us Christians.\n\n[235]Jer. xlviii. 10.\n\n[236]The happiness of the King of Persia was proverbial: see Hor., _Od._\n   ii. 12, 21, iii. 9, 4.\n\n[237]By \"Necessity\" here Dionysius means not \"Fate\" in the fatalist's\n   sense, but that supreme Will and Purpose of God, which is opposed to\n   the Epicurean doctrine of chance.\n\n[238]The title here given ({hypoth\u00eakai}) is not given in the list of\n   Democritus's works, but the {hypomn\u00eamata \u00eathika} may be meant.\n\n[239]It is impossible to reproduce the play upon words here, {eutych\u00ea t\u00ean\n   phron\u00easin, emphronestat\u00ean t\u00ean tych\u00ean}. The reference seems to be to\n   such poetical passages as Soph., _O. T._ 977 ff., and Eur., _Alc._ 785\n   ff., where the practical wisdom of leaving the future to take care of\n   itself is extolled.\n\n[240]Epicurus himself contended that by {h\u00eadon\u00ea} (pleasure) he meant not\n   sensual enjoyments so much as freedom from pain of body and from\n   disturbance of soul ({ataraxia}), the source of which was largely in\n   the exercise of the mind and will: see Zeller, _Stoics, Epicureans and\n   Sceptics_, pp. 473 ff.\n\n[241]The words quoted ({d\u00f4t\u00earas ea\u00f4n}) are a Homeric phrase, e. g. _Od._\n   viii. 325 and 335.\n\n[242]The derivation from {theein} is proposed by Plato, _Cratyl._ 397 C:\n   that from {theinai} by Herod, ii. 52, and of the two the latter is the\n   more likely ({root}{the}) though Curtius suggests a root {thes} = to\n   pray: see Peile, _Introd. to Philology_, p. 37 (3rd ed., 1875).\n\n[243]These are probably some sort of Gnostics who took over Manichean\n   views of God and Matter, but not of the worst kind, for they\n   recognized that God had the control and disposition of matter.\n\n[244]Some one, _i. e._ who could give them the property of being without\n   beginning.\n\n[245]\"Different from both,\" because the being without beginning is not of\n   the very essence of both. See further on.\n\n[246]A curious expression, for which one would have expected the opposite\n   statement, viz. that the handicrafts can shape and form the materials\n   they deal with rather than that the materials give the necessary\n   methods and designs to the handicrafts which deal with them. Up to\n   this point Dionysius has been combating the view with which the\n   extract begins. The rest of the extract proceeds to show what amount\n   of truth there is in it.\n\n[247]The reference here is to Manichean views of the worst kind, _i. e._\n   that matter is not only without beginning, but the source of evil and\n   altogether independent of God.\n\n[248]_i. e._ Dionysius of Rome, to whom this treatise was addressed. This\n   particular \"other letter\" does not seem to have been known to\n   Eusebius, and when Athanasius quotes this extract in another of his\n   treatises he omits the words \"to thee.\"\n\n[249]Athanasius himself was sparing in his use of the term, and the Synod\n   of Antioch (A.D. 264) refused to accept it, as liable to\n   misconstruction.\n\n[250]_i. e._ in the letter to Euphranor (about Sabellianism in Libya)\n   which had given rise to the Bishop of Rome's intervention.\n\n[251]It looks as if Dionysius was in exile when he wrote this. See above,\n   p. 19.\n\n[252]_i. e._ each of the two is itself and not the other, as was said\n   above in the case of parents and children.\n\n[253]i. e. they had gone or sent to Rome, in order to attack him.\n\n[254]Viz. about the plant and the ship, which he has already apologized\n   for as not quite appropriate.\n\n[255]_i. e._ in Scripture, _e. g._ in such passage as Wisd. vii. 25, to\n   which he refers in the next sentence.\n\n[256]Sc. in Dionysius's letter to Euphranor: cf. John x. 30, xvii. 11,\n   21, 22. The extract on p. 106 below deals with the same thought more\n   fully. In both places Dionysius's language is based on Philo's\n   discussion of the {logos endiathetos} and the {logos prophorikos} (the\n   conceived and the expressed word), _de vita Mosis_, p. 230, Cohn.\n\n[257]i. e. _from_ the Father and _through_ the Son: Dionysius seems to\n   have derived this view of the Holy Spirit's Procession from his\n   master, Origen, though he is thinking here rather of the Mission of\n   the Spirit into the Church and its members than of the eternal and\n   necessary relations of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity to one\n   another, as the sentences that follow indicate.\n\n[258]_Lit._ in their hands: a striking expression which Athanasius\n   borrows from Dionysius in his _Exposition of the Faith_.\n\n[259]This is what Dionysius of Rome had imputed to our Dionysius, though\n   without the word \"wholly\" he would not have altogether discarded the\n   position.\n\n[260]{Logos} is translated throughout this passage by \"speech\" (_i. e._\n   uttered words), except in the last clause, where it refers to the Son\n   Himself and where it must be rendered by \"Word\" as usual: but\n   obviously \"speech\" is only part of the full meaning of {logos}. The\n   whole passage should be compared with the preceding extract.\n\n[261]Ps. xliv. (xlv.) 1: here R.V. translates {logon agathon}, \"a goodly\n   matter,\" in accordance with A.V.\n\n[262]The word used ({enkyklein}) suggests the scenic device of the\n   {enkykl\u00eama}, by which some kind of change of scene was brought on to\n   the stage in the Greek theatre: see _Classical Dict._, s.v.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n  Absolution, 43, 60 f.\n  \u00c6lia (Jerusalem), 52\n  \u00c6milianus, Governor of Pannonia, 14, 65\n      Prefect of Egypt, 16, 27, 46 f.\n  Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, 51\n      Bishop of Tyre, 52\n      a martyr, 38\n  Alexander Severus, Emperor, 12, 66\n  Alexandrians, letter to, 28, 70 ff.\n  Alogi referred to, 84\n  Ammon, a martyr, 40\n  Ammonarion, a martyr, 39\n  Antioch, Council of, 10, 51, 103\n  Apollonia, a martyr, 36\n  Arabia, 10, 41, 52\n  Aristotle referred to, 28, 95\n  Arius, heresy of, 20, 56, 108\n  Ater, a martyr, 39\n  Athanasius, 9, 19 ff., 103 ff.\n\n  Baptism of heretics, 15, 26, 51 ff., 59\n  Basil, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, 9, 22, 80\n  Basilides, letter to, 26, 29, 76 ff.\n  Benson, Archbishop, 14, 34, 51, 52, 55\n  Besas, a martyr, 38\n  Bethune-Baker, Dr., 22\n  Bithynia, Churches of, 52\n\n  Cappadocia, Churches of, 52, 54\n  Catechetical School of Alexandria, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32\n  Cemeteries, Christian, 17, 47\n  Cephro, 17, 46, 48 f.\n  Cerinthus, heresy of, 85\n  Ch\u00e6remon, Bishop of Nilopolis, 41\n      a deacon, 46, 64\n  _Chronicon Orientale_, 9 ff.\n  Cilicia, Churches of, 52, 54\n  Colluthion, 17, 49\n  Communion, ritual of, 26, 60\n      reservation of species, 42 f.\n  Conon, letter to, 60 f.\n  _Consistentes_, 60\n  Copts (Egyptians), 10, 39, 66, 70, 73\n  Coracion, converted from heresy, 84\n  Cornelia Salonina, 14, 69\n  Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, 15, 51\n  Cronion Eunous, a martyr, 38\n  Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 9, 11, 15, 55, 58\n\n  Damascus, John of, 9, 75\n  Decius, Persecution of, 13 f., 39, 43, 65\n  Demetrianus, Bishop of Antioch, 52\n  Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, 11\n  Democritus quoted, 25, 28, 99\n  Dionysia, a martyr, 39\n  Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, 19 f., 58 f., 103\n  Dionysius, church dedicated to St., 31\n  Dioscorus, a presbyter, 64\n      a boy confessor, 39\n  Domitius and Didymus, letter to, 63 f.\n  _Duumviri_, 63\n\n  Easter Letters, 28, 63 ff.\n  Ecclesiastes, Beginning of, 30\n  Ephesus and the two Johns, 89\n  Epicurus, 12, 23 ff., 91 ff.\n  Epimachus, a martyr, 38\n  Euphranor, letter to, 56, 104, 105\n  Euripides referred to, 100\n  Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist_. of, 9, 22, 35 ff., 82 ff.\n      _Pr\u00e6par. Evangelica_ of, 9, 34, 91 ff., 101 f.\n  Exorcists, 66\n\n  Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, 12, 35\n  Fast before Easter, 76 ff.\n  Firmilianus, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, 52, 54\n  _Frumentarius_, 13, 43\n\n  Gaius of Rome referred to, 84\n  Galatia, Churches of, 55\n  Gallienus, Emperor, 14, 17, 46, 68\n  Gallus, Emperor, 14, 65\n  Germanus, letter to, 10, 14, 27, 43 ff.\n\n  Helenus, Bishop of Tarsus, 52\n  Heliodorus, Bishop of Laodicea, 52\n  Heracles, Bishop of Alexandria, 11, 12, 57, 59\n  Hermammon, letter to, 28, 65 ff.\n  Herodotus referred to, 101\n  Heron, a martyr, 39\n  Hesiod quoted, 28, 93, 98\n  Hierax, letter to, 73 ff.\n  Hippolytus, Canons of, 33\n  Homer quoted, 28, 75, 95, 100\n\n  Iconium, Synod of, 15, 55, 58\n  Ingenuus, a martyr, 40\n  Ischyrion, a martyr, 40 f.\n  Isidore, a martyr, 39\n\n  Jerome, 22, 30, 33, 108\n  Julian, a martyr, 38\n\n  Libya, 13, 19, 38, 46, 64\n\n  Macar, a martyr, 38\n  Macrianus, 16, 18, 27, 60, 64, 67, 68\n  Mareotis, Lake, 48, 63, 73\n  Marinus, Bishop of Tyre, 52\n  Marriage of clergy, 11, 41, 44\n  Mazabbanes, Bishop of \u00c6lia, 52\n  Mercuria, a martyr, 39\n  Mesopotamia, Churches of, 52\n  Metras, a martyr, 35\n  Millenarian views, 82 ff.\n\n  Nature, treatise on, 12, 23 ff., 91 ff.\n  Nemesion, a martyr, 39\n  Nepos of Arsenoe, 27, 29, 82 ff.\n  Nilopolis, 41\n  Novatian, schism of, 15 f., 26, 27, 34, 50, 59\n\n  Origen and his pupils, 11, 12, 13, 28 ff., 36, 51, 52, 86\n\n  Par\u00e6tonium, 64\n  Paul of Samosata, heresy of, 23\n  Pentapolis, 18, 55, 76\n  \"Perfect,\" applied to Christians, 64, 71\n  Philemon, letter to, 11, 55, 56 ff.\n  Philip the Arabian, Emperor, 12, 13, 37, 66\n  Philo Jud\u00e6us, 105\n  Plato referred to, 95, 101\n  Pontus, Churches of, 52\n  Pope, title of, 57\n  Prayers for Emperor, 47\n  Procopius of Gaza, 30\n  Promises, treatise on the, 23, 28, 29, 82 ff.\n  Ptolemais, 55\n  Ptolemy, a martyr, 40\n\n  Quinta, a martyr, 35\n\n  Rationalis, office of, 16, 17, 67\n  Refutation and Defence, 21 f., 101 ff.\n  Refutation of Allegorists, 29, 82\n  Repentance, 59, 62\n  Rufinus, 22, 64\n\n  _Sabaita_, 10\n  Sabellius, heresy of, 18 ff., 27, 55, 101 ff.\n  Sabinus, Prefect of Egypt, 13, 35, 43, 50\n  Saracens, 41\n  Sarapion, case of, 26, 42 f.\n  Soldiers as Christians, 40, 63\n  Sophocles referred to, 100\n  Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 15, 34, 53, 54\n  Swete, Dr., 23, 78\n  Synnada, Synod of, 15, 55, 58\n  Syria, Churches of, 52\n\n  Taposiris, 13, 16, 44\n  Thelymidrus, Bishop of Laodicea, 52\n  Theoctistus, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, 52\n  Theophilus, a martyr, 40\n  Theotecnus, Bishop of C\u00e6sarea, 29\n  Thucydides quoted, 28, 71\n  Timotheus, a boy, 11, 44, 64\n  _Trullo_, Council _in_, 76, 78\n\n  Valerian, Emperor, 14, 16, 17, 47, 65\n\n  Westcott, Bishop, 23, 24, 78\n\n  Xystus II, Bishop of Rome, 19, 54 ff., 59 ff.\n\n  Zenon, a martyr, 40\n\n\n       Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,\n       BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. 1, AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n\n\n\n                            TRANSLATIONS OF\n                          CHRISTIAN LITERATURE\n\n\nA number of translations from the Fathers have already been published by\nthe S.P.C.K. under the title \"Early Church Classics.\" It is now proposed\nto enlarge this series to include texts which are neither \"early\" nor\nnecessarily \"classics.\" The divisions at present proposed are given\nbelow. Volumes belonging to the original series are marked with an\nasterisk.\n\n\n                        SERIES I.--GREEK TEXTS.\n\n*The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome. By the Rt. Rev. J. A. F.\n        Gregg, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n*Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that is being saved? By P. M.\n        Barnard, B.D. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n*St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood. By T. A. Moxon. 2_s._\n\n*The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles. By C. Bigg, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n*The Epistle to Diognetus. By the Rt. Rev. L. B. Radford, D.D. 1_s._\n        6_d._\n\nSt. Dionysius of Alexandria. By C. L. Feltoe, D.D.\n\n*The Epistle of the Gallican Churches: Lugdunum and Vienna. With an\n        Appendix containing Tertullian's Address to Martyrs and the\n        Passion of St. Perpetua. By T. H. Bindley, D.D. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n*St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration. By the Ven. J. H.\n        Srawley, D.D. 2_s._\n\n*St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina. By W. K. Lowther Clarke,\n        B.D. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n*Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the Address of Gregory to\n        Origen, with Origen's Letter to Gregory. By W. Metcalfe, B.D.\n        1_s._ 6_d._\n\n*The Shepherd of Hermas. By C. Taylor, D.D. 2 vols. 2_s._ each.\n\n*The Epistles of St. Ignatius. By the Ven. J. H. Srawley, D.D. 2 vols.\n        1_s._ 3_d._ each.\n\n*St. Irenaeus: Against the Heresies. By F. R. M. Hitchcock, D.D. 2 vols.\n        2_s._ each.\n\nPalladius: The Lausiac History. By W. K. Lowther Clarke, B.D.\n\n*St. Polycarp. By B. Jackson. 1_s._ 3_d._\n\n\n                        SERIES II.--LATIN TEXTS.\n\n*St. Augustine: The City of God. By F. R. M. Hitchcock, D.D. 1_s._ 6_d._\n\n*St. Cyprian: The Lord's Prayer. By T. H. Bindley, D.D. 1_s._ 6_d._\n\nMinucius Felix: The Octavius. By J. H. Freese.\n\n*Tertullian: On the Testimony of the Soul and On the Prescription of\n        Heretics. By T. H. Bindley, D.D. 2_s._\n\n*St. Vincent of Lerins: The Commonitory. By T. H. Bindley, D.D. 2_s._\n\n\n                     SERIES III.--LITURGICAL TEXTS.\n                      Edited by C. L. FELTOE, D.D.\n\nSt. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacraments. By T. Thompson, B.D.\n\n*The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, with special reference\n        to their Liturgical elements. By De Lacy O'Leary, D.D. 1_s._\n        3_d._\n\n*The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution, commonly\n        called the Clementine Liturgy. By R. H. Cresswell. 1_s._ 6_d._\n\nThe Pilgrimage of Etheria. By M. L. McClure.\n\n*Bishop Sarapion's Prayer-Book. By the Rt. Rev. J. Wordsworth, D.D. 1_s._\n        6_d._\n\n\n                   (_Other series in contemplation_)\n\n\n\n\n                          Transcriber's Notes\n\n\n--Moved footnotes from page footers to end of text\n\n--Page 105: corrected reference to Athanasius based on errata published\n  elsewhere: par. 17 was par. 23.\n\n--Latin-1 text transliterates Greek words in {curly brackets} (HTML\n  displays full UTF; full UTF text version also created.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"St. Dionysius of Alexandria: Letters and Treatises","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":31752}