NPNF2-01 Eusebius 598
598 40 loutron. That Novatian re-baptized all those who came over to him from the Church is stated by Cyprian in his epistle to Jubaianus, §2 (No. 72, al. 73). His principle was similar to that which later actuated the Donatists, namely, that baptism is valid only when performed by priests of true and approved Christian character. Denying, then, that those who defiled themselves and did despite to God s holy Church by communing with the lapsed were true Christians, he could not do otherwise than reject their baptism as quite invalid.
41 It was the custom from a very early period to cause the candidate for baptism to go through a certain course of training of greater or less length, and to require him to assent to a formulated statement of belief before the administration of the sacred rite. Thus we learn from the Didache that even as early as the very beginning of the second century the custom of pre-baptismal training was already in vogue, and we know that by the third century the system of catechetical instruction was a highly developed thing, extending commonly over two to three years. Candidates for baptism were then known as catechumens. So far as a baptismal creed or confession of faith is concerned, Caspari (see (his great work, Studien zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols) has shown that such a creed was in use in the Roman church before the middle of the second century, and that it formed the basis of what we know as the Apostles’ Creed, which in the form in which we have it is a later development.
Inasmuch as Novatian, so far as we can learn, was perfectly orthodox on matters of faith, he would not have cared to make any alteration in such a creed as the present Apostles’ Creed. Exactly what Dionysius means in the present case is not certain. It is possible that he is simply speaking in general terms, assuming that if Novatian does not accept the Church baptism, he must overturn and pervert with it the instruction which had preceded; or it may be that he is thinking of that form of confession to which the candidate was required to give his assent, according to Cyprian, Ep. 69 (al. 70): credis in vitam oeternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam? “Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church?” The latter is the view of Valesius, who is followed by all others that have discussed the passage so far as I am aware. Of course Novatian could not put the last clause of this question to his converts, and hence Dionysius may have been thinking of this omission in using the words he does. At the same time I confess myself unable to agree with others in interpreting him thus. In the first place, it is, to say the least, very doubtful whether the question quoted above from Cyprian formed an article in the baptismal confession of the Church in general. It does not appear in the Apostles’ Creed, and can therefore hardly have formed a part of the earlier Roman formula which underlay that. And so far as I am aware there are no traces of the use of such an article in the church of Alexandria. In the second place, Dionysius’ language seems to me too general to admit of such a particular application. Had he been thinking of one especial article of the confession, as omitted or altered by Novatian, he would, in my opinion, have given some indication of it. I am, therefore, inclined to take his words in the most general sense, suggested as possible just above.
42 These last clauses are, according to Valesius, fraught with difficulty. He interprets the autwn (“entirely banished from them”) as referring to the lapsi, and interpreted thus I find the passage not simply difficult, as he does, but incomprehensible. But I confess myself again unable to accept his interpretation. To me the autwn seems not to refer to the lapsi, to whom there has been no direct reference in this fragment quoted by Eusebius, but rather to Novatian’s converts, to whom reference is made in the previous sentence, and who are evidently in the mind of the writer in referring to Novatian’s baptism in the first clause of the present sentence. It seems to me that Dionysius means simply to say that in rejecting the baptism of the Church, and the “faith and confession which precede it,” Novatian necessarily drove away from his converts the Holy Spirit, who works in and through right confession and true baptism. The meaning of the words “if, indeed, there was any hope,” &c., thus becomes very clear; Dionysius does not believe, of course, that the Holy Spirit would remain with those who should leave the Church to go with Novatian, but even if he should remain, he would be driven entirely away from them when they blasphemed him and denied his work, by rejecting the true baptism and submitting to another baptism without the Church.
43 i.e. his fifth epistle on the subject of baptism (see (above, chap. 5, note 6). The sixth, likewise addressed to Xystus, is mentioned below in §6.
44 On Xystus II. of Rome, see chap 5, note 5.
45 On Heraclas, see above Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.
46 See the previous chapter, note 3.
47 The reference here, of course, is not to the Novatians, because this old man, who had been a regular attendant upon the orthodox Church since the time of Heraclas, if not before, had been baptized by the heretics long before Novatian arose. The epistle seems to contain no reference to Novatian; at least, the fragment which we have is dealing with an entirely different subject.
48 Dittrich finds in this epistle an evidence that Dionysius was not fully convinced of the advisability of re-baptizing converts from heretical bodies, that he wavered in fact between the Eastern and the Roman practices, but I am unable to see that the epistle implies anything of the kind. It is not that he doubts the necessity of re-baptism in ordinary cases,—he is not discussing that subject at all,—the question is, does long communion itself take the place of baptism; does not a man, unwittingly baptized, gain through such communion the grace from the Spirit which is ordinarily conveyed in baptism, and might not the rite of baptism at so late a date be an insult to the Spirit, who might have been working through the sacrament of the eucharist during all these years? It is this question which Dionysius desires to have Xystus assist him in answering—a question which has nothing to do, in Dionysius’ mind, with the validity or non-validity of heretical baptism, for it will be noticed that he does not base his refusal to baptize the man upon the fact that he has already been baptized, partially, or imperfectly, or in any other way, but solely upon the fact that he has for so long been partaking of the eucharist).
49 On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.
599 50 (So many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot speak with certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here. But it may perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian Confessor is meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by granting letters of pardon indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of regular custom and of Cyprian’s authority (see (Cypriani Ep 16, 17, 20, 21, 22; al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred to, the epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions upon which they were to be received again into the Church. That the epistle did not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do with the subject of baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not numbered among the epistles on that subject, as six others are.
51 oi amfi ton Gallon. Eusebius is undoubtedly referring to Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent, and Aemilian, his enemy and successor. Gallus himself, with his son Volusian, whom he made Caesar and co-regent, reigned from the latter part of the year 251 to about the middle of the year 253, when the empire was usurped by Aemilian, and he and his son were slain. Aemilian was recognized by the senate as the legal emperor, but within four months Valerian, Gallus’ leading general,—who had already been proclaimed emperor by his legions,—revenged the murder of Gallus and came to the throne. Valerian reigned until 260, when his son Gallienus, who had been associated with him in the government from the beginning, succeeded him and reigned until 268.
52 Upon this epistle, see above, chap. 1, note 3.
53 (Ap 13,5 Ap 13,
54 Philip was the only emperor before this time that was openly said to have been a Christian (see (above, Bk. VI. chap. 34, note 2). Alexander Severus was very favorable to the Christians, and Eusebius may have been thinking of him also in this connection.
55 viz. Macrianus, one of the ablest of Valerian’s generals, who had acquired great influence over him and had been raised by him to the highest position in the army and made his chief counselor. Dionysius is the only one to tell us that he was the chief of the Egyptian magicians. Gibbon doubts the statement, but Macrianus may well have been an Egyptian by birth and devoted, as so many of the Egyptians were, to arts of magic, and have gained power over Valerian in this way which he could have gained in no other. It is not necessary of course to understand Dionysius’ words as implying that Macrianus was officially at the head of the body of Egyptian magicians, but simply that he was the greatest, or one of the greatest, of them. He figures in our other sources simply as a military and political character, but it was natural for Dionysius to emphasize his addiction to magic, though he could hardly have done it had Macrianus’ practices in this respect not been commonly known.
56 The persecution which the Christians suffered under Valerian was more terrible than any other except that of Diocletian. Numerous calamities took place during his reign. The barbarians were constantly invading and ravaging the borders of the empire, and on the east the Persians did great damage. Still worse was the terrible plague which had begun in the reign of Decius and raged for about fifteen years. All these calamities aroused the religious fears of the emperor. Dionysius tells us that he was induced by Macrianus to have recourse to human sacrifices and other similar means of penetrating the events of the future, and when these rites failed, the presence of Christians—irreligious men hated by the gods—in the imperial family was urged as the reason for the failure, and thus the hostility of the emperor was aroused against all Christians. As a consequence an edict was published in 257 requiring all persons to conform at least outwardly to the religion of Rome on the penalty of exile. And at the same time the Christians were prohibited from holding religious services, upon pain of death. In 258 followed a rescript of terrible severity. Only the clergy and the higher ranks of the laity were attacked, but they were sentenced to death if they refused to repent, and the clergy, apparently, whether they repented or not. The persecution continued until Valerian’s captivity, which took place probably late in 260. The dates during this period are very uncertain, but Dionysius’ statement that the persecution continued forty-two months is probably not far out of the way; from late in the year 257 to the year 261, when it was brought to an end by Gallienus. In Egypt and the Orient the persecution seems to have continued a few months longer than elsewhere (see (chap. 13, note 3). The martyrs were very numerous during the Valerian persecution, especially in Rome and Africa. The most noted were Cyprian and Xystus II. On the details of the persecution, see Tillemont, H. E. IV. p. 1 sq.
57 i.e. the evil spirits. As Valesius remarks, the meaning is that since the evil spirits had promised him power, he showed his gratitude to them by inducing the Emperor Valerian to persecute the Christians.
58 epi twn kaqolou logwn. The phrase is equivalent to the Latin Rationalis or Procurator summae rei, an official who had charge of the imperial finances, and who might be called either treasurer or finance minister. The position which Macrianus held seems to have been the highest civil position in the empire (cf. Valesius’ note ad locum). Gibbon calls him Praetorian Prefect, and since he was the most famous of Valerian’s generals, he doubtless held that position also, though I am not aware that any of our sources state that he did.
59 The Greek contains a play upon the words kaqolou and logo" in this sentence. It reads o" proteron men epi twn kaqolou logwn legomeno" einai basilew", ouden eulogon oude kaqolikon efronhsen. The play upon the word kaqolou continues in the next sentence, where the Greek runs to kaqolou mh blepousin, and in the following, where it reads ou gar sunhke thn kaqolou pronoian. Again in the next sentence the adjective kaqolikh occurs: “his universal Church.”
60 (Ez 13,3 Ez 13,
600 61 kaqolikh", “catholic” in the sense of “general” or “universal,” the play upon the word still continuing.
62 Makriano". The Greek word makran means “far,” “at a distance.”
63 (Is 66,3, Is 66,4 Is 66,
64 i.e. Macrianus.
65 Valerian reposed complete confidence in Macrianus and followed his advice in the conduct of the wars against the Persians. The result was that by Macrianus’ “weak or wicked counsels the imperial army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military skill were equally unavailing.” (Gibbon). Dionysius, in chap. 23, below, directly states that Macrianus betrayed Valerian, and this is the view of the case commonly taken. Valerian fell into the hands of the Persians (late in 260 a.d.), and Macrianus was proclaimed emperor by his troops, and on account of his lameness (as both Dionysius and Zonaras put it) or his age, associated with him his two sons, Quietus and Macrianus. After some months he left his son Quietus in charge of Syria, and designing to make himself master of the Occident, marched with his son Macrianus against Gallienus, but was met in Illyrium by the Pretender Aureolus (262) and defeated, and both himself and son slain. His son Quietus meanwhile was besieged in Edessa by the Pretender Odenathus and slain. Cf. Tillemont’s Histoire des Empereurs, III. p. 333 sq. and p. 340 sq.
66 (Ex 20,5 Ex 20,
67 hutucei. Three mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Burton, Stroth (and by the translators Closs, Crusè, and Salmond in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 107), read htucei, “failed” (“in whose gratification he failed”)). hutucei, however, is supported by overwhelming ms. authority, and is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and approved by Valesius in his notes. It seems at first sight the harder reading, and is, therefore, in itself to be preferred to the easier reading, htucei. Although it seems harder, it is really fully in accord with what has preceded. Macrianus had not made himself emperor (if Dionysius is to be believed), but he had succeeded fully in his desires, in that he had raised his sons to the purple. If he had acquired such power as to be able to do that, he must have given them the position, because he preferred to govern in that way; and if that be so, be could hardly be said to have failed in his desires.
68 On Germanus, and Dionysius’ epistle to him, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2.
69 Literally “it says” (fhsi), a common formula in quoting from Scripture.
70 Tob. 12,7.
71 This Aemilianus, prefect of Egypt, under whom the persecution was carried on in Alexandria during Valerian’s reign, later, during the reign of Gallienus, was induced (or compelled) by the troops of Alexandria to revolt against Gallienus, and assume the purple himself. He was defeated, however, by Theodotus, Gal-lienus’ general, and was put to death in prison, in what year we do not know. Cf. Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. III. p. 342 sq.
601 72 Maximus is mentioned a number of times in this chapter in connection with the persecution. After the death of Dionysius he succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, and as such is referred to below, in chaps. 28, 30, and 32. For the dates of his episcopate, see chap. 28, note 10.
73 On Faustus, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10.
74 In regard to this deacon Eusebius, who later became bishop of Laodicea, see chap. 32, note 12.
75 Chaeremon is mentioned three times in the present chapter, but we have no other reliable information in regard to him.
76 We may gather from §11, below, that Germanus had accused Dionysius of neglecting to hold the customary assemblies, and of seeking safety by flight. Valesius, in his note ad locum, remarks, “Dionysius was accused by Germanus of neglecting to hold the assemblies of the brethren before the beginning of the persecution, and of providing for his own safety by flight. For as often as persecution arose the bishops were accustomed first to convene the people, that they might exhort them to hold fast to their faith in Christ. Then they baptized infants and catechumens, that they might not depart this life without baptism, and they gave the eucharist to the faithful, because they did not know how long the persecution might last.” Valesius refers for confirmation of his statements to an epistle sent to Pope Hormisdas, by Germanus and others, in regard to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica (circa a.d. 519). I have not been able to verify the reference. The custom mentioned by Valesius is certainly a most natural one, and therefore Valesius’ statements are very likely quite true, though there seems to be little direct testimony upon which to rest them).
77 (Ac 5,29 Ac 5,
78 We learn from §10, below, that Cephro was in Libya. Beyond this nothing is known of the place so far as I am aware.
79 This Marcellus, the only one not mentioned in §3, above, is an otherwise unknown person.
80 twn para fusin. That the twn refers to “gods” (viz. the gods of the Christians, Aemilianus thinking of them as plural) seems clear, both on account of the qeou" just preceding, and also in view of the fact that in §9 we have the phrase twn kata fusin qewn. A contrast, therefore, is drawn in the present case between the gods of the heathen and those of the Christians.
81 koimhthria; literally, “sleeping-places.” The word was used only in this sense in classic Greek; but the Christians, looking upon death only as a sleep, early applied the name to their burial places; hence Aemilian speaks of them as the “so-called (kaloumena) cemeteries.”
82 See above, note 9.
602 83 w" eipein, a reading approved by Valesius in his notes, and adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen. This and the readings w" eipen, “as he said” (adopted by Stroth, Zimmermann, and Laemmer), and w" eipon, “as I said” (adopted by Stephanus, Valesius in his text, and Burton), are about equally supported by ms. authority, while some mss. read w" eipen o apostolo", “as the apostle said.” It is impossible to decide with any degree of assurance between the first three readings.
84 (1Co 5,3 1Co 5,
85 (Col 4,3 Col 4,
86 Libukwterou" topou". Libya was an indefinite term among the ancients for that part of Africa which included the Great Desert and all the unexplored country lying west and south of it. Almost nothing was known about the country, and the desert and the regions beyond were peopled by the fancy with all sorts of terrible monsters, and were looked upon as the theater of the most dire forces, natural and supernatural. As a consequence, the term “Libyan” became a synonym for all that was most disagreeable and dreadful in nature.
87 Mareotis, or Mareia, or Maria, was one of the land districts into which Egypt was divided. A lake, a town situated on the shore of the lake, and the district in which they lay, all bore the same name. The district Mareotis lay just south of Alexandria, but did not include it, for Alexandria and Ptolemais formed an independent sphere of administration sharply separated from the thirty-six land districts of the country. Cf. Bk. II. chap. 17, notes 10 and 12, above. Mommsen (Roman Provinces, Scribner’s ed. Vol. II. p. 255) remarks that these land districts, like the cities, became the basis of episcopal dioceses. This we should expect to be the case, but I am not aware that we can prove it to have been regularly so, at any rate not during the earlier centuries. Cf. e.g. Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, London ed., I. p. 192 sq.
88 hma" de mallon en odw kai prwtou" katalhfqhsomenou" etaxen.
89 ta Kollouqiwno" (sc). merh), i.e. the parts or regions of Colluthion. Of Colluthion, so far as I am aware, nothing is known. It seems to have been a town, possibly a section of country in the district of Mareotis. Nicephorus spells the word with a single l, which Valesius contends is more correct because the word is derived from Colutho, which was not an uncommon name in Egypt (see (Valesius’ note ad locum).
90 kata mero" sunagwgai, literally, “partial meetings.” It is plain enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were allowed to hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and were not compelled always to attend the city church, which might be a number of miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this passage is sufficient to warrant Valesius’ conclusion, that in the time of Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the brethren met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do not appear to indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were in a different state then from that which existed in the time of Athanasius, who, in his Apology to Constantius, §14 sq., expressly speaks of a number of church buildings in Alexandria.
91 Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, §2, from which passage we may gather that he held the same position under Decius which Aemilianus held under Valerian (see (note 3 on the chapter referred to).
92 We learn from chap. 20, below, that this epistle to Domitius and Didymus was one of Dionysius’ regular festal epistles (for there is no ground for assuming that a different epistle is referred to in that chapter). Domitius and Didymus are otherwise unknown personages. Eusebius evidently (as we can see both from this chapter and from chapter 20) supposes this epistle to refer to the persecution, of which Dionysius has been speaking in that portion of his epistle to Germanus quoted in this chapter; namely, to the persecution of Valerian. But he is clearly mistaken in this supposition; for, as we can see from a comparison of §22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40, §6 sq., Dionysius is referring in this epistle to the same persecution to which he referred in that chapter; namely, to the persecution of Decius. But the present epistle was written (as we learn from §23) while this same persecution was still going on, and, therefore, some years before the time of Valerian’s persecution, and before the writing of the epistle to Germanus (see (Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2), with which Eusebius here associates it. Cf. Valesius’ note ad locum and Dittrich’s Dionysius der Grosse, p. 40 sq.
93 (Is 49,8 Is 49,
603 94 See above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10.
95 See ibid. §6 sq.
96 Paraetonium was an important town and harbor on the Mediterranean, about 150 miles west of Alexandria. A day’s journey among the ancients commonly denoted about 180 to 200 stadia (22 to 25 miles), so that Dionysius retreat must have lain some 60 to 70 miles from Paraetonium, probably to the south of it.
97 On Maximus, see above, note 5.
98 Of Dioscorus we know only what is told us here. He is not to be identified with the lad mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 41, §19 (see (note 17 on that chapter).
99 Of Demetrius and Lucius we know only what is recorded here.
100 Faustinus and Aquila are known to us only from this passage.
101 On these three deacons, see above, notes 6–8).
102 See below, chap. 32, §5.
103 See chap. 28, note 8.
104 That is, until the persecution of Diocletian, a.d. 303 sq.
604 105 That is, according to Eusebius, in the time of Valerian, but only the events related in the first part of the chapter took place at that time; those recorded in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus in the time of Decius. See above, note 25.
106 Of these three men we know only what is told us in this chapter.
107 Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. IV. chap. 15, and in Martyrs of Pal. chap. 10. In H. E. V. 16, it is stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many martyrs, but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowledge them as Christians, and would not recognize them even when they were martyred together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the eyes of the state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.
108 Valerian was taken captive by Sapor, king of Persia, probably late in the year 260 (the date is somewhat uncertain) and died in captivity. His son Gallienus, already associated with him in the empire, became sole emperor when his father fell into the Persians’ hands.
109 Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts (programmata, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from the rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to the bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put a stop to the persecution,—that they in fact made Christianity a religio licita, and that for the first time. The right of the Christians as a body (the corpus Christianorum) to hold property is recognized in this rescript, and this involves the legal recognition of that body. Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the “bishops,” which implies a recognition of the organization of the Church. See the article of Görres, Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus, in the Jahrb. für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 606 sq.
110 antigrafh: the technical term for an epistle containing private instructions, in distinction from an edict or public proclamation. This rescript was addressed to the bishops of the province of Egypt including Dionysius of Alexandria). It was evidently issued some time after the publication of the edicts themselves. Its exact date is uncertain, but it was probably written immediately after the fall of the usurper Macrianus (i.e. late in 261 or early in 262), during the time of whose usurpation the benefits of Gallienus’ edicts of toleration could of course not have been felt in Egypt and the Orient.
111 Eusebh", Eutuch", Sebasto".
112 Of Pinnas and Demetrius we know nothing. The identification of Demetrius with the presbyter mentioned in chap. 11, §24, might be suggested as possible. There is nothing to prevent such an identification, nor, on the other hand, is there anything to be urged in its favor beyond mere agreement in a name which was not an uncommon one in Egypt.
113 opw" apo twn topwn twn qrhskeusimwn apocwrhswsi. This is commonly taken to mean that the “Christians may come forth from their religious retreats,” which, however, does not seem to be the sense of the original. I prefer to read, with Closs, “that the heathen may depart from the Christians’ places of worship,” from those, namely, which they had taken possession of during the persecution.
114 The reference is doubtless to the edicts, referred to above, which he had issued immediately after his accession, but which had not been sooner put in force in Egypt because of the usurper Macrianus (see (above, note 3).
115 (So far as I am aware, this man is known to us only from this passage.
605 116 o tou megistou pragmato" prostateuwn. Heinichen, following Valesius, identifies this office with the o epi twn kaqolou logwn (mentioned in chap. 10, §5), with the o twn kaqolou logwn eparco" (mentioned in Bk. IX. chap. 11, §4), &c. For the nature of that office, see chap. 10, note 8. The phrase used in this passage seems to suggest the identification, and yet I am inclined to think, inasmuch as the rescript has to do specifically with the Church in Egypt, that Aurelius Cyrenius was not (as Macrianus was under Valerian) the emperor’s general finance minister, in charge of the affairs of the empire, but simply the supreme finance minister or administrator of Egypt (cf. Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner’s ed., II. p. 268).
117 The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as meeting-places for religious worship, had been denied to the Christians by Valerian. On the origin of the word koimhthria, see chap. 11, note 14.
118 On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5.
119 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
120 On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7.
121 On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
122 Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus from about 233–270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note 1.
123 On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2.
124 On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27.
125 Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of Rome (254–257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see (chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed. Eusebius’ words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few months.
126 The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of Samosata.
606 127 On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5.
128 According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymenaeus was bishop of Jerusalem from 265–298. It is expressly stated in the Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see (Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been unacquainted, and that Hymenaeus was bishop at any rate as early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see (the note on Mazabanes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.
129 The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of Gallienus’ edict of toleration and after peace had been, as Eusebius remarks, everywhere restored to the churches, has caused historians some difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and others, and with especial force by Görres in the Fahrbücher für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 620 sq., that the martyrdom of Marinus took place while the usurper Macrianus, who was exceedingly hostile to the Christians, was still in power in the East, and at a time, therefore, when the edicts of Gallienus could have no force there. This of course explains the difficulty completely. The martyrdom then must have taken place toward the beginning of Gallienus’ reign, for Macrianus was slain as early as 262. Of the martyr Marinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here.
130 to klhma. The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-branch or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Vitis.
131 Achaes is an otherwise unknown person. That he was governor of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assumption, for the term used of him (dikasth") is quite indefinite.
132 On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, note 9).
133 We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind, and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He probably concluded, from Eusebius’ account of him, that he also suffered martyrdom.
134 Burton and Crusè close the chapter at this point, throwing the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen, Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.
135 Caesarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Caesarea, the chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally called Paneas by the Greeks,—a name which it retained even after the name Caesarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p. 409 sq.
136 Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been sent.
137 This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (H. E. V. 21) and Philostorgius (H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks ((Qo Hist., Harper’s ed. 1P 70), “Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on account of a swthri or qew appearing in the inscription.” There can be no doubt of Eusebius’ honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that the statue commemorated something quite different from that which Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole chapter, see Heinichen’s Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq.
NPNF2-01 Eusebius 598