Chapter 46.—Other Epistles of Dionysius

1. He wrote also an epistle to the brethren in Egypt on Repentance.[1] In this he sets forth what seemed proper to him in regard to those who had fallen, and he describes the classes of transgressions.

2. There is extant also a private letter on Repentance, which he wrote to Conon,[2] bishop of the parish of Hermopolis, and another of an admonitory[3] character, to his flock at Alexandria. Among them also is the one written to Origen on Martyrdom[4] and to the brethren at Laodicea,[5] of whom Thelymidres was bishop. He likewise sent one on Repentance to the brethren in Armenia,[6] of whom Merozanes was bishop.

3. Besides all these, he wrote to Cornelius of Rome, when he had received from him an epistle against Novatus.[7] He states in this that he had been invited by Helenus,[8] bishop of Tarsus, in Cilicia, and the others who were with him, Firmilianus,[9] bishop in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus,[10] of Palestine, to meet them at the synod in Antioch, where some persons were endeavoring to establish the schism of Novatus.

4. Besides this he writes that he had been informed that Fabius[11] had fallen asleep, and that Demetrianus[12] had been appointed his successor in the episcopate of Antioch. He writes also in these words concerning the bishop of Jerusalem: “For the blessed Alexander[13] having been confined in prison, passed away happily.”

5. In addition to this there is extant also a certain other diaconal epistle of Dionysius, sent to those in Rome through Hippolytus.[14] And he wrote another to them on Peace, and likewise on Repentance;[15] and yet another to the confessors there who still held to the opinion of Novatus.[16] He sent two more to the same persons after they had returned to the Church. And he communicated with many others by letters, which he has left behind him as a benefit in various ways to those who now diligently study his writings.[17]

Footnotes

[3] ἐπιστρεπτική; literally, “calculated to turn.” Musculus and Christophorsonus translate hortatoria; Valesius, objurgatoria; Stroth and Closs, “Ermahnungsschrift”; Crusè, “epistle of reproof.” The word does not necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but it is natural to suppose in the present case that it was written while Dionysius was absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of Decius, and if so, may well have contained an admonition to steadfastness, and at the same time, possibly, an argument against rigoristic measures which some of the people may have been advocating in reference to the lapsed. At least, the connection in which Eusebius mentions it might lead us to think that it had something to do with that question, though, as the epistle is no longer extant, we can reach no certainty in the matter.

[7] On Cornelius, see above, chap. 39, note. 3. His epistle to Dionysius is no longer extant. Dionysius’ epistle to him is likewise lost, and is known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It was written after the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, §4), and therefore probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has been questioned whether this synod of Antioch to which, according to Eusebius, Dionysius referred, was really held, or only projected. The Libellus Synodicus records it as an actual synod, but its authority is of no weight. On the other hand, Eusebius’ words seem plainly to indicate that he believed that the council was really held, for he speaks of it as “the synod at Antioch”; had he thought of it only as projected, he could hardly have referred to it in such definite terms. In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich, Hefele, and others, I am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed that the synod had actually been held in Antioch. Whether the epistle of Dionysius warranted him in drawing that conclusion is another question, which cannot be decided. I look upon it, however, as probable that, had the synod been simply projected and failed to convene, some indication of that fact would have been given by Dionysius, and would have caused a modification of Eusebius’ statement.

[8] Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose about Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the latter chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council in Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who seems to have presided at the previous councils, having died on his way to the last one. Of Helenus’ dates we know only what we can gather from the facts here stated. He must have been bishop as early as 252; and he cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of the Antiochian synod at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1).

[14] The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The Greek runs ἑξῆς ταύτῃ καὶ ἑτέρα τις ἐπιστολὴ τοῖς ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ τοῦ Διονυσίου φέρεται διακονικὴ διὰ ῾Ιππολύτου. The φέρεται, according to the usage of Eusebius, must mean “is extant,” and some participle (e.g. “written” or “sent”) must then be supplied before διὰ ῾Ιππολύτου. Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by Hippolytus or was carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The latter is more probable and is the commonly accepted interpretation. That Eusebius should name a messenger in this particular case and in no other seems peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so prominent a character as to merit especial mention. Who he was we do not know, for chronology will not permit us (as was formerly done by some scholars) to identify him with the great writer of the Roman church (see above, chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippolytus of prominence is known to us. In view of Eusebius’ mention of the name at this point, I am inclined, however, to think that he, knowing so little about the Roman Hippolytus, fancied that this was the same man. If he did, he had good reason to mention him. The word “diaconal” (διακονικὴ) in this sentence has caused much dispute. Rufinus translates epistola de ministeriis; Valesius, epistola de officio diaconi, that is, “concerning the office (or duties) of the diaconate,” and it seems out of the question to understand the word in any other way. Why Dionysius should address an epistle on this subject to the Roman church it is impossible to say. Magistris supposed that it was called “diaconal” because it was to be read in church by a deacon, and concluded that it was an exhortation to peace, since it was customary for the deacons to offer the εἰρηνικ€, or prayers for peace. The supposition is attractive, for it is natural to think that this epistle, like the others, discussed the Novatian schism and contained an exhortation to peace. But we cannot without further evidence adopt Magistris’ explanation, nor indeed can we assume that a diaconal epistle as such (whether the word is a technical one or not, and though it might seem such we have no other trace of such a use of it) had to do with the unity or peace of the Church. We must, in fact, leave the matter quite undetermined. Compare Dittrich, ibid. p. 55.