NPNF2-01 Eusebius 607

607 138 See Mt 9,20 sq.

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

140 Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress Constantia Augusta (see (above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to idolatry. In consequences of this disapproval he fell into great disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited by the iconoclasts at the second Council of Nicaea, in 787, and his orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defenders of image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day).

141 That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11.

142 See Ga 1,19. On the actual relationship of “James, the Brother of the Lord” to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

143 There can be no doubt that a chair (qrono"), said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily remarks: “Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als einen Stuhl!” The beginning of that veneration of relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen’s Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq).. Crusè has unaccountably rendered qrono" in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is quite unwarranted.

144 Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1, and see that note for references to the various passages in which Eusebius mentions or quotes from his epistles.

145 Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in the time of Valerian or Gallienus; but he is mistaken, at least so far as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see (above, chap. 11, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others also.

146 ta" feromena" eortastika". It was the custom for the bishops of Alexandria to write every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or homily, and in it to announce the time of the festival. These writings thus received the name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see (Suicer’s Thesaurus s.v. eortastiko", and Valesius’ note ad locum). This is apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are referred to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius to various persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops during these centuries wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far as I am aware, except a number by Athanasius (extant only in a Syriac version, published in Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846 and 1848), a few by Theophilus (extant only in Latin), and thirty by Cyril (published in Migne’s Patr. Gr. LXXVII. 391 sq)..

147 Of this Flavius we know nothing. The epistle addressed to him is no longer extant.

148 On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them, see above, chap. 11, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in that chapter.

608 149 That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single sixteen-year cycle (see (above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c.) had not come into general use in the Church until later than this time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency, but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In fact, the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of Easter, so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of Laodicea (see (below, chap. 32, §14). It was soon adopted in the Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had become the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from Athanasius’ Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning of the date of Easter, and although an older and less accurate cycle remained in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle gradually won its way everywhere. See Ideler’s great work on chronology, and cf. Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed. 1. p. 332, and Lightfoot in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. 11. p. 313 sq.

150 These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know the names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a part of them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake in connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not prove that he was in error in regard to all the others as well.

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

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

153 Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.

154 cf. Philemon. vers. 12).

155 ek petra" akrotomou. The adjective is an addition of Dionysius’ own. The LXX of Ex 17,6 has only petra, “rock.”

156 epozesa"; the same word which is used in the LXX of Ex 7,21.

157 Ghwn; LXX (
Gn 2,13), Gewn; He ÷/jyG

158 This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262), this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular festal epistle so-called, for in §11, below, we are told that Dionysius wrote a regular festal letter (eortastikhn grafhn) to the brethren in Egypt, and that apparently in connection with this same Easter of the year 263.

159 i.e. to the heathen.

609 160 i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice.

161 (
Ex 12,30 Ex 12,

162 kai ofelon ge, with the majority of the mss., followed by Valesius, Schwegler, and Heinichen. Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann, upon the authority of two mss., read kai ofelon ge ei" (“and would that there were but one !”), a reading which Valesius approves in his notes. The weight of ms. authority, however, is with the former, and it alone justifies the gar of the following sentence).

163 periyhma; cf. 1Co 4,13. Valesius suggests that this may have been a humble and complimentary form of salutation among the Alexandrians: egw eimi periyhma sou (cf. our words, “Your humble servant”); or, as he thinks more probable, that the expression had come to be habitually applied to the Christians by the heathen. The former interpretation seems to me the only possible one in view of the words immediately preceding: “which always seems a mere expression of courtesy.” Certainly these words rule out the second interpretation suggested by Valesius.

164 The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with the letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not a whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore, look upon it as Dionysius’ festal epistle of the year 263 (see above, note 1). Neither this nor the “several others” spoken of just below is now extant.

165 This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they were addressed.

166 On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above, chap. 1, note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that chapter and also in chap. 10.

167 i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5.

168 (He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the result which took place, and after Valerian’s capture he made war upon Gallienus, the latter’s son and successor. See the note referred to just above.

169 (Is 42,9 Is 42,

170 Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the favor shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the profane historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one of the darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account of the numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the internal disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure.

610 171 Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and courage which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius’ words at this point are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallienus upon the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in the minds of those who had suffered from the persecutions of his predecessors.

172 The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of the seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplexity. Stroth thinks that “Dionysius speaks here of the time when Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for a year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country had been interrupted.” The view of Pearson, however, seems to me better. He remarks: “Whoever expressed himself thus, that one after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This septennium (eptaethri") must designate something peculiar and different from the time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of that empire [the father, Valerian being in captivity in Persia], Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honor especially in Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had still much authority in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. in 261, Macrianus, the father and the two sons being slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognized also among the Egyptians.” “The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was written by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from that, and fails consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d.” See also chap. 1, note 3, above.

173 Of this Egyptian bishop Nepos, we know only what is told us in this chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although chiliasm had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology of the third century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain its sway in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts in the East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of thought, and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it was looked upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity,—they lived as most Christians of the second century had, in the constant hope of a speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth. The gradual exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief involved the same kind of consequences as the disappearance of the belief in the continued possession by the Church of the spirit of prophecy (see (Bk. V. chap. 16, note 1), and marks another step in the progress of the Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of the first and second, to the more formal spirit of the third and following centuries. Compare the remarks of Harnack in his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 482 sq. It seems, from §6, below, that Dionysius had engaged in an oral discussion of the doctrines taught in the book of Nepos, which had prevailed for a long time in Arsinoë, where the disputation was held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties in the discussion, and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius. He was evidently afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which was widely circulated, would still continue to do damage, and therefore he undertook to refute it in a work of his own, entitled On the Promises (see (the next note). His work, like his disputation, undoubtedly had considerable effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in some of the outlying districts of Egypt for a number of generations.

174 peri epaggeliwn. This work, as we learn from §3, below, contained in the first book Dionysius’ own views on the subject under dispute, in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse upon which Nepos based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no longer extant, though Eusebius gives extracts from the second book in this and in the next chapter; and three brief fragments have been preserved in a Vatican ms., and are published in the various editions of Dionysius’ works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81–84. We have no means of ascertaining the date of Dionysius work. Hefele (Conciliengesch.
1P 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put the disputation at Arsinoë, in 254 or 255, and the composition of the work of Dionysius of course soon thereafter; but we have no authority for fixing the date of the disputation with such exactness, and must be content to leave it quite undetermined, though it is not improbable that it took place, as Dittrich maintains, between the persecutions of Decius and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth book of his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius, On the Promises (evidently referring to this same work), directed against Irenaeus. In his de vir ill. 69, however, he follows Eusebius in stating that the work was written against Nepos. There can be no doubt on this score, and Jerome’s statement in his commentary seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however, that Irenaeus, as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic views, may have been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work, and thus Jerome have had some justification for his report.

175 Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical interpreters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions deduced by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and allegorizing its language. This work of Nepos has entirely perished.

176 The words “I confess that” are not in the original, but the insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete the sentence.

177 On early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 14.

178 “i.e). dire ante promiitunt quam tradunt. The metaphor is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them on the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their judgment and reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian says in his book Against the Valentinians [chap. 1].” Valesius).

179 en tw AEArsinoeith. The Arsinoite nome or district (on the nomes of Egypt, see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated on the western bank of the Nile, between the river and Lake Moeris, southwest of Memphis.

180 Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.

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

611 182 A portion of this extract (§§2 and 3) has been already quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.

183 (Ap 22,7,
Ap 22,8 Ap 22, punctuates this passage peculiarly, and thus interprets it quite differently from all our versions of the Book of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with our received text of the Apocalypse; but the words kagw AEIwannh" o akouwn kai blepwn tauta, which Dionysius connects with the preceding, should form an independent sentence: “And I, John, am he that heard and saw these things.”

184 On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and 18.

185 th" tou bibliou diexagwgh" legomenh". Valesius considers diexagwgh equivalent to dispositionem or oikonomian, “for diexagwgein is the same as dioikein, as Suidas says.” He translates ex libelli totius ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be interpreted also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The phrase evidently means the “general disposition” or “form” of the work. Closs translates “aus ihrer ganzen Ausführung”; Salmond, “the whole disposition and execution of the book”; Crusè, “the execution of the whole book.”

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

187 (Ap 1,1, Ap 1,2 Ap 1,

188 (Ap 1,4 Ap 1,

189 (1Jn 1,1 1Jn 1,

190 (Mt 16,17 Mt 16,

191 See 2 John, ver. 1, and 3 John, ver. 1.

192 (Ap 1,9 Ap 1,

612 193 (Ap 22,7, Ap 22,8 Ap 22, above, note Ap 3
194 See Jn 13,23, Jn 19,26, Jn 20,2, Jn 21,7, Jn 21,20.

195 See Jn 13,23, Jn 13,25. These words, oude ton anapesonta epi to sthqo" autou, are wanting in Heinichen’s edition; but as they are found in all the other editions and versions and Heinichen gives no reason for their omission, it is clear that they have been omitted inadvertently.

196 In Ac 12,12, Ac 12,25, Acts xiii. 5, Ac 13,13, Ac 15,37. On Mc and the second Gospel, see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

197 (Ac 13,5 Ac 13,

198 (Ac 13,13 Ac 13,

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

200 i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer of the Gospel and Epistles.

201 (Jn 1,1 Jn 1,

202 (1Jn 1,1 1Jn 1,

203 (Jn 1,14 Jn 1,

613 204 (1Jn 1,1, 1Jn 1,2 1Jn 1,

205 (1Jn 1,2, 1Jn 1,3).

206 See 2Co 12,1 sq., Ga 2,2.

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

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

209 Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know nothing.

210 On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below, p. 397.

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

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

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

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

614 215 thn kaq hma" genean. This seems to indicate that the events recorded by Eusebius from this point on took place during his own lifetime. See above, p. 4.

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

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

218 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

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

Our sources for a knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a number of fragments from the acts of the council, given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.; and scattered notices in the Fathers of the fourth century, especially Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, &c. Cf. also Jerome’s de vir. ill. 71, and Epiphanius’ Haer. 65. See Harnack’s article Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in Schaff-Herzog); also Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., art). Paulus of Samosata.

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

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

222 On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

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

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

615 225 Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know nothing. An earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is mentioned in Book VI. chap. 19, above.

226 On Hymenaeus, see chap. 14, note 11.

227 On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.

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

229 i.e. Antioch).

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

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

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

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

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

235 i.e. Paul of Samosata.

NPNF2-01 Eusebius 607