Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

version of the Chron. ascribes eight years to his episcopate, but this, too, is quite impossible, and the date given for his accession (the first year of Valerian) is inconsistent with the notice which he gives in regard to Stephen. Xystus upheld the Roman practice of accepting heretics and schismatics without re-baptism, but he seems to have adopted a more conciliatory tone toward those who held the opposite view than his predecessor Stephen had done (cf. Pontius’ Vita Cypriani, chap. 14).

The first of Dionysius’ epistles on baptism was written to Stephen of Rome, as we learn from chap. 2, above. Four others are mentioned by Eusebius, addressed respectively to Philemon, a Roman presbyter (chap. 7, §1), to Dionysius of Rome ( ibid. §6), to Xystus of Rome (chap. 9, §1), and to Xystus and the church of Rome ( ibid. §6).

ἀπολούσασθαι

Dionysius afterward became Xystus’ successor as bishop of Rome. See below, chap. 27, note 2.

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

Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the head of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198–217), and was there perhaps even earlier. He is, and was already in the fourth century, commonly called a native of Africa, but the first one directly to state this is Basil, and the opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views were especially popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the third century, as Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of him does not mention his birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline to the opinion that he was a native of Rome. The matter, in fact, cannot be decided. We are told by Hippolytus that Callistus led Sabellius into heresy, but that after he became pope he excommunicated him in order to gain a reputation for orthodoxy. Of the later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings are no longer extant, though there are apparently quotations from some of them in Epiphanius, Hær. 62, and Athanasius, Contra Arian. Oratio 4. In the third century those Monarchians (modalists) who were known as Patripassians in the West were called Sabellians in the East. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Fathers used the term Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however, tended in the one direction, viz. toward the denial of any personal distinction in the Godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son. And so we characterize every teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic, although this form of Monarchianism is really much older than Sabellius. See Harnack’s article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d ed. (abridged translation in Schaff-Herzog), and Stokes’ article on Sabellius and Sabellianism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., both of which give the literature, and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full. Neander’s account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq.

ἐπέστειλ€ τινα ὡς ἐδυνήθην, παρασχόντος τοῦ θεοῦ, διδασκαλικώτερον ὑφηγούμενος, ὧν τὰ ἀντίγραφα žπεμψ€ σοι . Of these letters no fragments are extant. They are not to be confounded with the four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as Dittrich suggests, that they included the letters on the same subject to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in that chapter. Upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

žπεμψα . The epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to a past time, but to the time of the writing of the letter, which is past when the person to whom the letter is sent reads the words. The same word ( žπεμψα ) is used in this sense in Acts xxiii. 30, 2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22 , Col. iv. 8 . Cf. the remarks of Bishop Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, VI. 11.

Of this Philemon we know no more than we can gather from this chapter. Upon Dionysius’ position on the re-baptism of heretics, see above, chap. 2, note 4, and upon his other epistles on that subject, see chap. 5, note 6.

Dionysius, in following this vision, was but showing himself a genuine disciple of his master Origen, and exhibiting the true spirit of the earlier Alexandrian school.

ὡς ἀποστολικῇ φωνῇ συντρέχον … γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζιται . This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here, sometimes as part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex. Strom. I. 28, γίνεσθε δὲ δόκιμοι τραπεζιται, τὰ μὲν ἀποδοκιμ€ζοντες, τὸ δὲ καλὸν κατέχοντες ), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers. In some cases it is cited (in connection with 1 Thess. v. 21, 22 ) on the authority of Paul (in the present case as an “apostolic word”), in other cases on the authority of “Scripture” ( ᾑ γραφή , or γέγραπται , or θεῖος λόγος ), in still more cases as an utterance of Christ himself. There can be little doubt that Christ really did utter these words, and that the words used by Paul in 1 Thess. v. 21, 22 , were likewise spoken by Christ in the same connection. We may, in fact, with considerable confidence recognize in these words part of a genuine extra-canonical saying of Christ, which was widely current in the early Church. We are to explain the words then not as so many have done, as merely based upon the words of Christ, reported in Matt. xxv. 12 sq., or upon the words of Paul already referred to, but as an actual utterance of the Master. Moreover, we may, since Resch’s careful discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha (or extra-canonical sayings of Christ), with considerable confidence assume that these words were handed down to post-apostolic times not in an apocryphal gospel, nor by mere oral tradition, but in the original Hebrew Matthew, of which Papias and many others tell us, and which is probably to be looked upon as a pre-canonical gospel, with the “Ur-Marcus” the main source of our present gospels of Matthew and Luke, and through the “Ur-Marcus” one of the sources of our present Gospel of Mark. Looked upon in this light these words quoted by Dionysius become of great interest to us. They (or a part of the same saying) are quoted more frequently by the Fathers than any other of the Agrapha (Resch, on p. 116 sq. gives 69 instances). Their interpretation, in connection with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. v. 21, 22 , has been very satisfactorily discussed by Hänsel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 170 sq. They undoubtedly mean that we are to test and to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad, as a skillful money-changer distinguishes good and bad coins. For a full discussion of this utterance, and for an exhibition of the many other patristic passages in which it occurs, see the magnificent work of Alfred Resch, Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4, Leipzig, 1889; the most complete and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha which we have.

π€πα . According to Suicer ( Thesaurus ) all bishops in the Occident as late as the fifth century were called Papæ as a mark of honor and though the term by that time had begun to be used in a distinctive sense of the bishop of Rome, the older usage continued in parts of the West outside of Italy, until Gregory VII. ( a.d. 1075) forbade the use of the name for any other than the pope. In the East the word was used for a long time as the especial title of the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome (see Suicer’s Thesaurus and Gieseler’s Church Hist. Harper’s edition, I. p. 499).

On Heraclas, see Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.

Compare Cyprian’s epistle to Quintus concerning the baptism of heretics ( Ep. 70, al. 71). Cyprian there takes the position stated here, that those who have been baptized in the Church and have afterward gone over to heresy and then returned again to the Church are not to be re-baptized, but to be received with the laying on of hands only. This of course does not at all invalidate the position of Cyprian and the others who re-baptized heretics, for they baptized heretics not because they had been heretics, but because they had not received true baptism, nor indeed any baptism at all, which it was impossible, in their view, for a heretic to give. They therefore repudiated (as Cyprian does in the epistle referred to) the term re-baptism, denying that they re -baptized anybody.

Namely the re-baptism (or, as they would say, the baptism ) of those who had received baptism only at the hands of heretics standing without the communion of the Church.

Iconium was the principal city of Lycaonia, and Synnada a city of Phrygia. The synod of Iconium referred to here is mentioned also by Firmilian in his epistle to Cyprian, §§7 and 19 ( Cypriani Ep. 74, al. 75). From that epistle we learn that the synod was attended by bishops from Phrygia, Cilicia, Galatia, and other countries, and that heretical baptism was entirely rejected by it. Moreover, we learn that Firmilian himself was present at the synod, and that it was held a considerable time before the writing of his epistle. This leads us to place the synod between 230 (on Firmilian’s dates, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3) and 240 or 250. Since it took place a considerable time before Firmilian wrote, it can hardly have been held much later than 240. Of the synod of Synnada, we know nothing. It very likely took place about the same time. See Hefele’s Conciliengesch. I. p. 107 sq. Dionysius was undoubtedly correct in appealing to ancient custom for the practice which he supported (see above, chap. 2, note 3).

φησί , i.e. “The Scripture saith.”

Deut. xix. 14 .

On Dionysius’ other epistles on baptism, see above, chap. 5, note 6.

On Dionysius of Rome, see below, chap. 27, note 2.

The majority of the mss. have Νοουατιανῷ , a few Ναυατιανῷ . This is the only place in which the name Novatian occurs in Eusebius’ History, and here it is used not by Eusebius himself but by Dionysius. Eusebius, in referring to the same man, always calls him Novatus (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1). Upon Novatian and his schism, see the same note.

λουτρόν . 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.

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 æternam 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.