| << | Contents | >> |
Dionysius
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 825
Introductory Note to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria.
[815] This passage is notable from the fact that it makes mention of the Saracens. For of the writers whose works have come down to us there is none more ancient than Dionysius of Alexandria that has named the Saracens. Ammianus Marcellinus, however, writes in his fourteenth book that he has made mention of the Saracens in the Acts of Marcus. Spartianus also mentions the Saracens in his Niger, and says that the Roman soldiers were beaten by them.—Vales. [“The barbarous Saracens:” what a nominis umbra projected by “coming events,” in this blissfully ignorant reference of our author! Compare Robertson, Researches, on the conquest of Jerusalem.]
[816] As to the martyrs’ immediate departure to the Lord, and their abode with Him, see Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. xliii., and On the Soul, v. 55. [Vol. iii. p. 576; Ib., p. 231.]
[817] That the martyrs were to be Christ’s assessors, judging the world with Him, was a common opinion among the fathers. So, after Dionysius, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, in his fifth book, Against the Novatians. Photius, in his Bibliotheca, following Chrysostom, objects to this, and explains Paul’s words in 1 Cor. vi. 2 as having the same intention as Christ’s words touching the men of Nineveh and the queen of the south who should rise up in the judgment and condemn that generation.
[818] συνδικάζοντες. See a noble passage in Bossuet, Préface sur l’Apocal , § 28.
[820] Dionysius is dealing here not with public communion, such as was the bishop’s prerogative to confer anew on the penitent, but with private fellowship among Christian people.—Vales.
[821] ἄδικον ποιησώμεθα is the reading of Codices Maz., Med., Fuk., and Savil., and also of Georgius Syncellus. Others read ἄδεκτον ποιησόμεθα, “we shall treat it as inadmissible.”
[822] The words καὶ τὸν Θεὸν παροξύνομεν, “and provoke God,” are sometimes added here; but they are wanting in Codices Maz., Med., Fuk., Savil., and in Georgius Syncellus.
[823] Eusebius introduces this in words to the following effect: “Writing to this same Fabius, who seemed to incline somewhat to this schism, Dionysius of Alexandria, after setting forth in his letter many other matters which bore on repentance, and after describing the conflicts of the martyrs who had recently suffered in Alexandria, relates among other things one specially wonderful fact, which I have deemed proper for insertion in this history, and which is as follows.”
[824] That is, none either of the clergy or of the people were moved by his prayers to consider him a proper subject for absolution; for the people’s suffrages were also necessary for the reception into the Church of any who had lapsed, and been on that account cut off from it. And sometimes the bishop himself asked the people to allow absolution to be given to the suppliant, as we see in Cyprian’s Epistle 53, to Cornelius [vol. v. p. 336, this series], and in Tertullian On Modesty, ch. xiii. [vol. iv. p. 86, this series]. Oftener, however, the people themselves made intercession with the bishop for the admission of penitents; of which we have a notable instance in the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch about that bishop who had ordained Novatianus. See also Cyprian, Epistle 59 [vol. v. p. 355].—Vales.
[825] In the African Synod, which met about the time that Dionysus wrote, it was decreed that absolution should be granted to lapsed persons who were near their end, provided that they had sought it earnestly before their illness. See Cyprian in the Epistle to Antonianus [vol. v. p. 327, this series].—Vales.
[826] ἀφίεσθαι. There is a longer reading in Codices Fuk. and Savil., viz.: τῶν θείων δώρων τῆς μεταδόσεως ἀξιοῦσθαι καὶ οὕτως ἀφιεσθαι, “be deemed worthy of the imparting of the divine gifts, and thus be absolved.”
[827] Valesius thinks that this custom prevailed for a long time, and cites a synodical letter of Ratherius, bishop of Verona (which has also been ascribed to Udalricus by Gretserus, who has published it along with his Life of Gregory VII.), in which the practice is expressly forbidden in these terms: “And let no one presume to give the communion to a laic or a woman for the purpose of conveying it to an infirm person.”
[828] ἀποβρέξαι. Rufinus renders it by infundere. References to this custom are found in Adamanus, in the second book of the Miracles of St. Columba, ch 6; in Bede, Life of St. Cuthbert, ch. 31, and in the poem on the life of the same; in Theodorus Campidunensis, Life of St. Magnus, ch. 22; in Paulus Bernriedensis, Life of Gregory VII., p. 113.
[829] ὁμολογηθῆναι. Langus, Wolfius, and Musculus render it confiteri, “confess.” Christophorsonus makes it in numerum confessorum referri, “reckoned in the number of confessors:” which may be allowed if it is understood to be a reckoning by Christ. For Dionysius alludes to those words of Christ in the Gospel: “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father.”—Vales.
Epistle IV.—To Cornelius the Roman Bishop.
[830] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 46.
Epistle V.—Which is the First on the Subject of Baptism Addressed to Stephen, Bishop of Rome.
[831] In the second chapter of the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says: “To this Stephen, Eusebius wrote the first of his epistles on the matter of baptism.” And he calls this the first, because Dionysius also wrote other four epistles to Xystus and Dionysius, two of the successors of Stephen, and to Philemon, on the same subject of the baptizing of heretics.—Gallandi.
[832] Eusebius introduces the letter thus: “When he had addressed many reasonings on this subject to him (Stephen) by letter, Dionysius at last showed him that, as the persecution had abated, the churches in all parts opposed to the innovations of Novatus were at peace among themselves.” [See vol. v. p. 275.]
[833] καὶ ἔτι προσωτέρω. These words are omitted in Codices Fulk, and Savil., as also by Christophorsonus; but are given in Codices Reg. Maz., and Med., and by Syncellus and Nicephorus.
[834] Baronius infers from this epistle that at this date, about 259 a.d., the Oriental bishops had given up their “error,” and fallen in with Stephen’s opinion, that heretics did not require to be rebaptized,—an inference, however, which Valesius deems false. [Undoubtedly so.]
[835] The name assigned by the pagans to Jerusalem was Ælia. It was so called even in Constantine’s time as we see in the Tabula Peutingerorum and the Itinerarium Antonini, written after Constantine’s reign. In the seventh canon of the Nicene Council we also find the name Ælia. [Given by Hadrian a.d. 135.]
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0057 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page