DILLMANN, (CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH) AU­GUST - 851 religious encyclopedia


German Lutheran theologian; b. at Il­lingen (17 m. n.w. of Stuttgart), Wttrttemberg, Apr. 25, 1823; d. in Berlin July 4, 1894. He studied in the seminary at Schbnthal, 183"0; at Ttibingen, 1840 45; was assistant pastor at Sers­heim, Wiirttemberg, 1845 46; traveled and studied, especially Ethiopic, at Paris, London, and Oxford, 1846 48; became repetent (i.e., tutor for three years) at Tiibingen, 1848; privat­docent for Old Testament exegesis in the theological faculty, 1852; professor extraordinary of theology, 1853; professor of Oriental languages in the phil­osophical faculty at Kiel, 18.54; professor of theol­ogy at Giessen, 1864; and at Berlin, 1869. He was distinguished for his cultivation of the neg­lected field of Ethiopic language and literature. As a critic he stood in opposition to the tra­ditional treatment of the Old Testament, but was always guided by his perception of the histor­ical principle. He received on this account the thanks of the late Dr. Delitzsch on the occasion of an address which was an answer to the latter's treatment of Old Testament theology, and replied in a spirit of warm cordiality and appreciation.

His publications embrace Catalogus codicum orientalium MSS. gun in Huseo Britannico asser­vantur. P. 111. Codices 1Ethiopicos amplectens (London, 1847); Catalogus codicum manuscrip­torum Bibliothecee Bodleianae Ozoniensis. P. VII. Codices Xthiopici, digessit A. Dillmann (Oxford, 1848); Liber Henoch, tEthiopice (Leipsie, 1851); Das Buch Henoch iibersetzt u. erkllirt (1853); Daa ehristliche Adambuch des Morgenlandes, aus dam Aethiopischen iibersetzt (reprinted from Ewald's Jahrbiieher, 1853); Biblia Veteris Testamenti Ethi­opica, Tomus 1. 0ctateuchus. Faso. 1, Genesin, Exodum, Leviticum (1853). Fase. 2, Numeros et Deuteronomium (1854). Faso. 3, Josua, Judicum

et Ruth (1855). Tomus 11. Faso. 1 et 2, Libri



Regum (1861 and 1871), vol. v. containing the Apocrypha (1894, but the missing vols. iii. and iv. will not appear); Grammatik der athiopischen 8prache (1857, 2d ed., by C. Bezold, 1899; Eng. tranal., 1907); LiberJubil(eorum, Xthiopiee (1859); Lexicon lingum Xthiopicm (1865); Chrestamathia Xthiopica cum glossario (1866); Liber Jubilceorum (Kiel, 1859); for the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand­buch he edited Hiob (1869, 1891); Genesis (1882, 1886, 1892, Eng. transl., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1897); Exodus and Leviticus (1880); Numeri, Deuterono­mium and Josua (1886); Jesaia (1890); and pos­thumously, Handbuch der aluestamendichen Theologie (Leipsic, 1895). He contributed also to Schenkel's Bibel or Lexikon, to Broekhaus' Conversations­Lexikon, and was associate editor of the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie.



August Dillmann, Leipsic, 1895; Zur Brinnerung an . . . Dillmann,




German philosopher; b. at Biebrich (3 m. s. of Wiesbaden) Nov. 10, 1833. He studied at Heidelberg and Berlin, was privat­docent in Berlin, and was appointed professor of philosophy at Basel in 1866. In 1868 he was called in the same capacity to Kiel, and in 1871 to Breslau. Since 1882 he has been professor of philosophy at Berlin. His writings include Leben Schleiermachers (Berlin, 1870); Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (Leipaie, 1883); and Das Erlebnis and die Diehtung (1906).


According to Epiphanius (Hwr., Ixxvii.), a name given to the followers of Apol­linaris of Laodicea (q.v.), because, according to them, Christ had assumed only two of the three elements of the perfect human form, the soma and the psyche alogos, whereas the divine Logos himself took in him the place of the nous, the

psyche logike. G. KRtYaER.


German edu­cator and theologian; b. at Borne (16 m. s.s.e. of Leipaic) Feb. 29, 1760; d. in Konigaberg May 29, 1831. In 1773 he entered the Fiiratenschule at Grimma, in 1779 the University of Leipsic. After serving as tutor he entered the ministry in 1787 as substitute at Kitacher,where his pastoral work, especially his untiring zeal for the education of the youth, made him greatly beloved. His success in training teachers for the lower schools led to his appointment as director of the normal school at Dresden in 1797. Because of ill health he returned to the ministry in 1807 at Gornitz, where he found­ed a progymnasium, which became famous as a training school for the practical pursuits of life. He became member of the conaistory and board of education in Kdnigsberg, 1816; professor of the­ology, 1817. His Sehullehrerbibel (9 vols., Neu­atadt, 1826 30) made a sensation. Starting with Semler's distinction between theology and religion, he sought in the Bible only that which, in his view, immediately belongs to religion; in this sphere, but noon science, the Bible should be the authority " To religion belong worthy conceptions of C=od, of Jesus and his work, of the sacredness of the moral law, of the worth and destiny of man, of the IIL 28

love of God even to the erring, of forgiveness of

sins, of the help God renders us to be good," etc.

Dinter repudiated strongly the charge that this is

rationalism, and considered himself orthodox. In

his method he was akin to Bahrdt, trying to rein­

terpret the language of the Bible in the spirit of

his time, and believing that herein he followed

Paul and Luther. His autobiography (Neustadt,

1829) gives the best key to his theology; it shows

a vigorous, plain, jovial, practical, and sympathetic

character. A complete edition of his writings

was edited by J. C. B. Wilhelm (43 vols., Neustadt,

1840 51). (SANDER.)

DIOCLETIAN (Caius Valerius Diocletianus): Ro­man emperor 284 305; b. near Salons (3 m. n.n.e. of Spalato), Dalmatia, c. 225; d, there Dec. 3, 316. He was probably a slave by birth, but entered the army and rose to high rank, becoming consul and commander of the body guards. After the death of Numesian he was proclaimed emperor by the legions near Chalcedon on Nov. 17, 284, and the assassination of Casinus in the following year left him sole emperor. He soon appointed his junior comrade Maximian Caesar, and later made him co­regent, assigning him the Western half of the empire. A second division of the empire took place Mar. 1, 793, when two Caesars were created, Caius Galerius Valeriua Maximianus, who married Valeria, Dio­cletian's daughter, and Marcus Flavius Valeriua Con­stantius. The reins of government remained in t71e hands of Diocletian, who was a born ruler, firmly convinced of the divinity of the imperial dignity. He possessed an interest in higher culture and was filled with a strong passion for building, though his refinement was but superficial and was fre­quently overborne by the savagery of his Illyrian blood.

In the latter part of the third century the Church

was flourishing in consequence of its long peace,

and many Christians were found in aristocratic

society, in influential public positions, in the army,

and even in the imperial household. Diocletian's

wife, Prisca, and his daughter Valerie

The Dio  were at least catechumens. Shortly

cletian Per  after his accession, however, Diocle­secution. tian left no doubt as to his attitude toward Christianity by an anti­Manichean decree issued in Egypt and usually assigned to 287, forbidding all religious innovation under heavy penalty. The purging of the army by weeding out these who refused to sacrifice was the first measure directly planned to render the troops reliable. An ill timed religious zeal offended the emperor and helped the anti Christian party, headed by Galerius, who urged him on, despite his hesitation in fear of consequences. In the winter of 302 303 tedious conferences were held at Nicomedia, but it was only after the Mileaisn Apollo had been consulted that Diocletian yielded, though he in­sisted that no blood be shed. Galeriua, however, overcame all his politic considerations and finally molded his religious policy. On Feb. 23, 303, the first edict was issued at Nicomedia. Christian freedmen were to be removed from public offices and were to lose their civic rights, while slaves were



deprived of the possibility of emancipation. The churches were to be demolished, the Scriptures were to be surrendered and burned, and religious meetings were prohibited. On the same day the destruction of the basilica of Nicomedia was begun and the Scriptures were publicly burned. Before the movement became general, however, a Nico­median official scornfully tore the edict down, and the palace was twice set on


the incendiary, according to the Christians, being Galerius, who hoped thus to impel the emperor to more drastic measures. Rebellions broke out in Armenia and Syria, and were naturally laid to the charge of the Christians. That the latter resolved upon active resistance and rebellion lacks justification, al­though it is not impossible that individuals, either secretly or openly, aided the usurpers in the East. The effect, however, could not but be unfavorable upon Diocletian's mind. A second edict was issued, similar to that of Decius, decreeing the imprison­ment of all the clergy. Diocletian's original in­junction forbidding the effusion of blood was soon forgotten in the general tumult. The multitude of prisoners caused no little trouble, and a new decree enacted that the sacrifice required by the second edict should be exacted by all means. In 304 another edict universalized the decree concerning sacrifice and abolished the distinction between clergy and laity, aiming primarily to detach the latter, who were far inferior to the clergy in zeal for the Church. Patient persuasion was also employed, and steadfast refusal led to punishment, torture, and execution. In many cases the decree was only superficially enforced. The leading spirit in all these events was Galerius; Maximian was a minor figure; and Constantius, already in sympathy with the Christians, was as conservative as possible, con­tenting himself with the demolition of buildings.

On May 1, 305, Diocletian abdicated and forced Maximian to do the same. Their places were filled by the Augusti, Galerius and Constantius, the new Ceesars being Maximinus Daza, a nephew of Galerius, who received Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and Severus, an uneducated officer of low

birth, who received Italy, Africa, and The End Pannonia. The West remained peace­of the Per  ful, but in the East the persecution

secution. was rendered still more severe by the

measures of Maximinus. Constantius died July 25, 306, and the army proclaimed his son Constantine Augustus. The ultimate outcome of rebellions and wars was the victory of Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, Oct. 28, 312, and soon after­ward the so called religious decree of Milan brought peace to the Church in the West (see CONBTANTINE Tae GREAT). Meanwhile the situation had changed in the East; circumstances compelled Galerius to cease from persecuting, and toward the end of Apr., 311, he and his coregent issued an edict in which they admitted the inefficiency of their efforts to restore religious uniformity. This was the first decree which officially recognized the Christian religion in the Roman empire, although the vague­ness of the clause, " yet so as that they offend not against good order," left a loophole for the State, In the autumn, however, when scarcely six months

had elapsed, Maximinus, now being the oldest Augustus, renewed the persecution. Christians were inhumanly mutilated and executed. The customary funeral services in the cemeteries were forbidden, possibly on the pretext that they were a cloak for immorality; religious meetings and the building of churches were prohibited; and dele­gates of the cities petitioned for the exclusion of the Christians. The defeat and death of Maxen­tius, the insignificant but ambitious son of Maxi­mian, who had overthrown Severus, suddenly changed the situation, and the victorious Constan­tine advised Maximinus to cease oppressing the Christians. The result was a circular letter ad­dressed by Maximinus in the latter part of 312, prohibiting the use of violence against Christians. On Apr. 30, 313, Maximinus was defeated in Thrace by Licinianus Licinius and forced to retire to Nicomedia. There, where the persecutions had been begun, an edict of toleration was issued on June 13, proclaiming the principle of religious lib­erty with special regard to the Christians. Every invidious distinction which still existed was abolished, and all property, including the confiscated placks of assembly, was to be restored at once to the Church as a legal person. Licinius assisted in rebuilding churches, while Maximinus retired beyond the Taurus and issued a new edict emphasizing his later measures. Soon afterward he died, imploring the help of Christ in his agony and despair. All me­morials of him were destroyed by the victor, and his wife and children, together with the wife and daughter of Diocletian and other relatives and adherents of the fallen dynasty, were murdered with shameful barbarity. Thus ended the ten years of the Diocletian persecution.

In his retirement Diocletian witnessed all these events, but every effort to induce him to leave Salona for public life was in vain. After a long and painful illness he died, perhaps by his own hand, and was buried in the splendid mausoleum of his palace. The bitter hostility of Christian writers toward him is readily intelligible. He was the cause of the longest and bloodiest

Its persecution which the Church ex­Results. perienced, and its continuation by his successors was regarded as his legacy. In a rapid series of edicts of increasing severity this persecution oppressed the congregations and resulted in a refinement of cruelty which surpassed all that had gone before. The effect of the first decree, which interfered so deeply with civic life, was tremendous. The reaction, both contemporary and subsequent, against apostasy produced Dona­tism in Africa and Meletianism in Egypt, besides causing schisms of more or less importance in many other placP,s. Flight was not considered apostasy by the Church. and it frequently afforded a means of safety, though there were many who endured torture, imprisonment, reproach, and death. The enthusiasm for martyrdom induced some to antici­pate their trial by a self chosen death, and women and virgins preferred suicide to dishonor. Self­accusation and violent denunciation of heathenism also took place, while life itself was considered less valuable than the safety of the Scriptures. The



clergy of all ranks fell by scores, though the Roman

bishop Marcellinus made an offering of incense.

The rich growth of maxtyrological literature in

prose and poetry and the cult of martyrs, which

soon became both wide spread and important,

were but expressions of the feeling with which

Christendom looked back upon its " soldiers of the


BIBLIoaBAPHY: Sources most productive are Rusebiu®,

Hist. eccl., books viii. ix.; Lactantius, De mortibus per.

aecutorum. The best monograph is A. J. Mason, The

Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge, 1876. Consult: T,

Bernhardt, Diokletian in eeinem Verhdltniss eu den Chris­

ten, Bonn, 1862; O. Hunsiger, Zur Repierung and Chris­

tenverfolgnp . . 308 813, Leipsic, 1888; B. Aubd, His­

toire des peraieutions do l'Eglise, 2 vols., Paris, 1875 78;

G. Uhlhom, Der Hampf des Christenthums mit dem Hei­

dentum, Stuttgart, 1889, Eng. tranel., New York, 1880;

V. Schultze,, Geachichte des Unterganps des priecAisch­

r6mi8chen Heidsntume, 2 vole., Jens, 1887 92; P. Allard.

La Perstcution de DiocUtien d Is hiomphe de 1'6plise, 2

vole., Paris, 1890; idem, Lee Dern*res Peraicutions du

8. siecle, ib. 1897; E. Le Blant, Lea PersIeutsws . .

aux premiers si?cles, Paris, 1893; O. Seeek, Geschiehte des

Unterpanps der antiken Welt, vol. i., Berlin, 1897; G. Bois­

eier, La Fin du papanisme, 2 vols., ib. 1901; L. Pullan,

Church of the Fathers, chap. avi., New York, 1905; Nean­

der, Christian Church, i. 147 155 et passim, ii. passim;

Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 84 74; Gibbon, Decline and

Fall, chaps. xiii~xvi.; DCB, i. 833 836.

DIODATI, di"o dd'ti, GIOVANNI: Genevan Re­

former; b. at Lucca June 6, 1576; d. at Geneva

Oct. 3, 1649. His family was compelled by religious

persecution to flee from Italy. He was a rigid

Calvinist, and while still a young man was appointed

to teach Hebrew in the Academy of Geneva (1597),

and later became professor of dogmatics. As one

of the Genevan deputies to the Synod of Dort in

1618, he took part in the compilation of the canons

of that body. He translated the Bible into Italian

(Geneva, 1607), his version meeting with a success

comparable with that of Luther's German render­

ing. He also prepared a revision of the French

translation which had been made by the pastors

and professors of Geneva in 1588, enriching his

work by valuable notes and elucidations (Eng.

transl., Pious Annotations upon the Holy Bible,

London, 1643). He translated into French Sarpi's

Historia del concilio tridentino (1621) and Sir Edwin

Sandys's Relation of the State of Religion (1626).

Diodati was a remarkable preacher and one of the

most distinguished defenders of the Reformed

Church, while the ambition of his life was the con­

version of his native land, and especially the repub­

lic of Venice, to his own creed.

EUGANn CHolsy.

BrBr.r066APHr: E. de Budd, Vie de Jean Diodati, Geneva,

1869; G. D. J. Schotel, Jean Diodati, The Hague, 1844;

P. Plan, Lettres trouvdw, pages historiquee sur un 6pieode

de la vie de Jean Diodat4 ib. 1864; Maria Bette, Life of

Giovanni Diodati, Genovese Theologian, London, 1905.

DIO"DO'RUS: Presbyter in Antioch, after 378

bishop of Tarsus; d. before 394. He was a native

of Antioch, one of the most prominent theologians

of the school of Antioch (q.v.), sad on the dog­

matic side its founder. After a general education

at Athens he equipped himself as a theologian and

orator by studying the writings of, and by personal

intercourse with Eusebius of Emesa. His aim was

twofold: to attain the fulness of ascetic perfection,

and to be a champion of the Church's faith. He

strove with all his energy to fulfil the monastic ideal, and the emperor Julian pointed to his wasted body as a proof of the displeasure of the gods. The state of the Church in Antioch called

Life and forth all his zeal as a presbyter. Not

Literary only had Julian, who made his winter

Activity. quarters there after his return from

the Persian campaign, restored the

temple of Apollo and used all his influence to win

the population back to paganism, but most of the

heretical sects were strong there. It was the center

of Arianism, and the Meletian schism had rent the

Church in two. Diodorus was the leading defender

of the Nicene faith. Naturally, therefore, his

writings, of which the later Syrian Church still

knew over sixty, were mainly controversial. They

were directed against all the principal enemies of

the Church, pagan, Jewish, and heretic. Of the

philosophers he especially combated Plato, Aris­

totle, and Porphyry; among heretics the Man­

icheans, Eunomiana, and Apollinarians, Sabel­

hus, Marcellus, and Photinus. He employed, too,

a very practical churchly activity against both

pagans and Arians; and his success, while it raised

up bitter enemies for him, made his name honored

throughout the Eastern Church. Even as a lay­

man, under Constantius, when the Arian Leontius

occupied the episcopal chair of Antioch, with his

friend Flavian, Diodorus had assembled the faithful

by night for worship. When the gentle Meletius

became bishop in 360 Diodorus supported him

vigorously and watched over the welfare of the

flock when the bishop was obliged by Arian enmity

to flee, and went from house to house strengthening

the devotion of the oppressed faithful. In 372 he

was forced to join the banished Meletius in Armenia.

Here he made friends with Basil the Great, and the

orthodoxy of Cappadocia and of Antioch joined

hands to insure the triumph of the Nicene faith.

Six years later he was consecrated bishop of Tarsus

by Meletius (378). In this capacity he took part

in the Council of Constantinople (381), and is said

to have brought about the choice of Nectarius as

patriarch. The council gave him metropolitan

jurisdiction over Cilicia. An imperial edict of 381

names him among the bishops who were to de­

cide the question of Nicene orthodoxy and conse­

quently of membership in the Catholic Church.

By a curious turn of fate, he who had been hon­ored as a pillar of the true faith by his contem­poraries fell under suspicion of heresy not forty years after his death, as a result of the Nestorian controversy. In his anxiety to vindicate the sig­nificance of the human element in the person of Christ and in the Scriptures, threatened by an overstrained idealism, in controversy with Apol­linaris Diodorus had put forth a theory of the relation of the two natures in Christ Theological which seemed to dissolve the one

Opinions. divine human Person into two. Ac­

cording to the fragments still pre­

served of the works called in question (" Against

the Synusiasts " and " On the Holy Spirit"), he

apparently distinguished between the Logos and

the Son of David, one the Son of God by nature,

the other by grace. Mary's son was not the Logos,


Dionysiua of Alexandria




the man begotten of the Holy Spirit. Since the Logos is essentially perfect, what is read in Scripture (Luke ii. 52) of a development in the Savior can only relate to his humanity. The mys­tery of the Incarnation consists in the assump­tion of a perfect man by the Logos, and the rela­tion of the two natures is that of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus as in a temple. In consequence of this connection, the son of David may be called the Son of God, but only in a derived sense; adoration is due to the humanity of Christ, but only so long as the distinction of nature is borne in mind. The spirit of God dwelt also in the prophets, but only temporarily and in a smaller measure; in Christ he dwelt permanently and without measure. This ethic dynamic view, based on the teaching of Paul of Samosata and Lucian, did not, of course, content Greek piety and ortho­doxy. When partizan zeal drove out Nestorian­ism as heresy the blow could not but react on the Christology of the older Antiochian theologians. Thus Cyril of Alexandria in several treatises demanded the condemnation of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; but the whole Syrian Church rose up to vindicate its revered teacher, and an imperial edict put an end to the dangerous business.

It was not till 499 that Bishop Flavian of Antioch,

hard pressed by the Monophysites, ventured to

pronounce an anathema on the writings of Diodorus

and Theodore. No such condemnation, however,

is found in the acts of the fifth general council

(Second Constantinople, 553). But the suspicion

of heresy clung to Diodorus, and most of his works

perished. The Nestorians alone kept alive the

memory of the man and the theologian as long as

their own existence lasted. He must have been

of considerable force in exegesis, following out the

grammatico historical principles of his school in

a commentary covering nearly the whole Bible,

which was marked by philological learning, inde­

pendence of dogmatic prejudice, careful distinction

of the Old and New Testament stages of revelation,

clearness, and sobriety. Only a few fragments are

scattered through the catenm; most of what re­

mains is in MPG, xxxiii., but needs sifting.

Diodorus's mind was not creative, but one that

combined extensive learning with strongly marked

dialectic individuality. Even his opponents re­

spected his zeal for the truth, and his life was with­

out reproach. He has a special historical impor­

tance from the fact that he trained for the Church

more than one of its prominent teachers. In his

school were matured the two great Greek Fathers

Theodore of Mopsuestia, in whom the theology of

Antioch reached its completest form, and John

Chrysostom. (A. HARNACg.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources are Jerome, De roir. ill., chap. cxix.; Chrysostom, Laus Diodori; Socrates, Hiet. ecd., vi. 3;

Sozomen, Hist. ecd., viii. 2 (the two last named in NPNF,

2d series, vol. ii.); and Theodoret, Hist. eccl., iv. 22 24

(in NPNF, vol. iii.). Consult: KL, iii. 1765 68; DCB,

i. 836 840.


An early Christian work, formerly preserved in a manuscript in the Stras­burg Library, where it was included in a collection of the writings of Justin Martyr, with the heading

"His [Epistle] to Diognetus." The manuscript perished in the siege of Strasburg in 1870. A late copy of it still exists at Leyden, from which Ste­phanus published it in 1592, and Sylburg in 1593. According to Otto, the manuscript belonged to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and had a good original, though the copy was somewhat carelessly made. What seems to be a considerable hiatus is observed in the seventh chapter, and the present conclusion is probably not the original one.

The letter is addressed to one Diognetus, in answer to his question how Christianity may be distinguished from paganism and Judaism, why it came so late into the world, and whence its dis­ciples draw their courage and contempt of the world. In answer to the first question, the author considers paganism as mere crude idolatry, admitting that the Jews have the advantage of a pure knowledge of God, though their material sacrifices and trivial ceremonial law are as foolish as the heathen system. In the second part he describes the Christian worship and ethics, and in the third explains the late arrival of this revelation by God's will, to let the world see how helpless mere human powers were to win the heavenly crown. When the measure of their sins was full he revealed himself by the Incarnation of his son, who, though sinless, paid the penalty of sin, so that men, now justified, might trust in the father­ly goodness of God. Hence springs the love which raises Christians so far above worldly rewards or penalties, and the fraternal devotion which makes their life on earth a foretaste of heaven.

There is no mention of the letter in any ancient writer, though here and there, as in Tertullian's Apologeticus, some scholars have thought they saw allusions to passages of it. No one seems to have known of it until the edition of Stephanus, nor does the epistle contain any indications from which a satisfactory conjecture as to its date or authorship can be made. Its attribution to Justin was orig­inally accepted, but Semisch has demonstrated that it can not be his. The language and literary style are too correct; the attitude of the letter toward both Judaism and paganism is not at all Justin's; and in its cosmology there is no trace of his favorite thought of the operation of the " spermatic logos " in the non Christian world.

There is less certainty, however, about the date of composition. While Semisch, Bunsen, and others adhered to Justin's period, attempts were made to throw it still farther back, with Ewald into the reign of Hadrian, or with Hefele into that of Trajan, or even into the first century. Hilgenfeld and Keim assign it to the second, and Zahn puts it between 250 and 310. A new stage of the inves­tigation opened with the discovery of the " Apol­ogy " of Aristides, to which the letter stands in a secondary or derived relation, though not close enough for Aristides to have been the author, as Kriiger thought. This relation helps to clear the ground for a decision as to the date, placing it between that of the "Apology " (from 138 to 161, probably 147) and that of Constantine. Secberg is probably right when he supposes some time to have elapsed between the two works; and, on the other hand, the author of the Epistle does not seem to



Diony®ius of Alexandria

have been through a general persecution. About

the beginning of the third century, then, will be a

safe date. The importance of the Epistle has been

much overestimated in the past. Its rhetorical

force and smoothness have possibly helped to evoke

this enthusiasm, which, however, has in large

measure disappeared; and it contributes scarcely

anything to

our knowledge

of the history of dogma.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Good editions are by C. Otto, Leipsic, 1852;

O. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack, Patrum apostoli­

corum opera I. ii. 154 164, Leipsic, 1878; B. L. Gild­

ersleeve, in Apology of Justin Martyr, pp. 83 94, New

York, 1877; F. X. Funk, in Opera patrum apostoli­

corum, i. 310 333, Tubingen, 1881. Eng. transl. may be

found in B. Cooper, Free Church of Ancient Christendom,

London, 1852, and in ANF, i. 25 30. A list of literature

is given in ANF, Index vol., pp. 5 7. Consult: C. G.

Semisch, Justin Martyr, i. 172 aqq., Breslau, 1840, Eng.

transl., i. 84 193, Edinburgh, 1832; C. K. J. Bunsen,

Hippolytus, i. 138 sqq, Leipsic, 1852, Eng. tranal., Lon­

don, 1852; G. H. H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel,

vii. 250 aqq., G6ttingen, 1868; F. Overbeek, Ueber den

Pseudo juatinianischen Brief an Dioynet, Basel, 1872;

A. Hilgenfeld, ZWT, xvi (1873), 270 286; T. Keim, in

Protestantiache Kirchenzeitunp, 1873, pp. 285 289, 309­

314; T. Zahn, GGA, 1873, pp. 106 116; H. Kibn, Der Ur­

sprung des Briefs an Diopnet, Freiburg, 1882; J. A. Rob­

inson, in TS, i. 1 (1891), 95 97; Kriiger, History, pp. 135­

137; idem, in ZWT, xxxvii (1894), 206 223; KL, iii.

1774 78; DCB, ii. 162 167.


dai"o nish'i us : Pope 259 268.

During the pontificate of Stephen (254 257) he

took part in the controversy about heretical bap­

tism, with his fellow presbyter Philemon address­

ing a letter to Dionysius of Alexandria. Elected

bishop on July 22, 259, the edict of toleration of

Gallienus soon enabled him to bring the Roman

Church into order. He had a share in dogmatic

development through his further dealings with his

namesake of Alexandria, who had already been in

communication with Sixtus II. concerning Sabel­

lianism, and had been led by his zeal against this

heresy to use expressions which seemed to reduce

Christ to the position of a creature. Some Egyptian

clergy brought the matter before Dionysius of

Rome, who dealt with it in a synod and gave out a

dogmatic pronouncement, of which a large section

is preserved by Athanasius (" On the Council of

Nicaea," xxvi.). It was no doubt addressed to

Egyptian or Libyan bishops, and attacked the

Sabellian teaching on one side, while on the other

it rebuked anti Sabellian extremes. At the same

time he wrote to his namesake asking him to clear

himself of the charges made against him, which

resulted in the well known "Retractations" of

Dionysius of Alexandria (q.v.). Dionysius of Rome

also wrote a letter of condolence to the Church of

Cwsarea in Cappadocia when it was attacked by

the Goths about 264, and sent representatives to

ransom captive Christians. His name appears with

that of Maximus of Alexandria, the successor of

Dionysius, at the head of the bishops to whom the

last council held in Antioch against Paul of Samo­

sata addressed its synodical epistle (Eusebius,

Hist. eccl., VII. xxx.). (A. HAUCK.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontilCCalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 157,

Paris, 1886, ed. Mommsen, in MGH, Gest. Pont. Rom.,

i (1898), 36; R. A. Lipsius, Chronolopie der rlmischen

Bischofe, Kiel, 1869; J. Langen, Geschichte der r6mischen

Kirche, pp. 353, Bonn, 1881; Bower, Popes, i 35 37; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 91; Neander, Christian Church, i. 606 $10, ii. 404; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 570 571.


Bishop of Alexandria; d. 264. A pupil of Origen,

though but little younger than his teacher, he

succeeded Heraclas in 231 or 232 as head of the

catechetical school of Alexandria, and became

bishop in 247 or 248. The Decian persecution

soon fell upon him (250). Attempting to escape,

he was arrested, but was unexpectedly set at

liberty. He next appears writing to Novatian in

the hope of restraining him, and his inclination

toward mildness in discipline comes out in other

letters. He took a similar conciliatory position in

the controversy on heretic baptism; his own prin­

ciples placed him on the Roman side, but he re­

spected the views of his opponents and was un­

willing to break off communion with them. In the

persecution under Valerian (257) he was banished,

first to Kephron in Libya and then to Holluthion in

the Mareotis district, and returned to Alexandria

only after the edict of Gallienus (260), to suffer

further trials from revolt, plague, and famine, of

which he has left a vivid picture (in Eusebius,

Hist. eccl., vii. 22). In the spirit of the Alexan­

drian school, he assisted in the overthrow of Mil­

lenarianism. In the Trinitarian controversy he

endeavored to uphold the Origenistic position as

far as possible, but was carried beyond it by the

course of the controversy and his own logic. His

letters against Sabellianism contained expressions

which were thought to decide in a contrary direction,

and gave rise to accusations brought against him

before Dionysius of Rome, to whom he justified

himself in four books, partly explaining away or

retracting the expressions complained of, and

partly taking refuge in vague language. Before

his death he took a decided stand against Paul of

Samosata by letter, since his age and infirmity pre­

vented him from attending the synod at Antioch.

He was the most important of the disciples of

Origen, and a worthy representative of the older

Alexandrian school, though not enough of an inde­

pendent thinker to understand and guide the doc­

trinal tendencies of his time. His importance in

exegesis, after the manner of Origen, is shown by

his short critical comparison of the Gospel and

Revelation of John, undertaken with the purpose of

demonstrating a diversity of authorship, and con­

sidered by some modern writers a still unsurpassed

treatment of the question. The most important

remains of his literary activity are his letters, which

include at least six on the treatment of the Lapsed

(q. v.), at least eight on the schism of Novatian, at least

eight on heretic baptism, at least four on Sabellian­

ism, a long series of annual Easter letters, and a

number to individuals. Only fragments of certaln

letters are preserved, although Dionysius was the

chief source used by Eusebius for the middle of the

third century. (A. HARNACg.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Fragments of Dionysiua are collected in M. J. Routh, Reliquice Sacroe, iii. 219 250, iv. 393 437, Oxford, 1846, and in MPG, x. Also, Letters and Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, ed. C. L. Feltoe, Cambridge,

1904. Eng, tranal. is in ANF, vi. 81 120.Literature is

Dionysine the Areopsete


given in ANP, Bibliography, pp. 88 88. Sours are: Jerome, De vir. ill., chap. lma.; Athanasius, De sentenhis Dionysii; Eusebiue, Riot. ecd., vi. 40 aqq. (cf. espe­cially NPNP, 2d series, i. 281, note). Consult: F. Ditt­rieh. Dionysius der Grosse, Freiburg, 1867; T. Fbrster, De dodrina et aententiis Dionyeii, Berlin, 1865; Krtlger, History, pp. 205 215; Harnack, Lilteratur, i. 409 427, 11. ii. 57 66 et passim; Neander, Christian Church, vols. f. ii. passim; Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 800 803; DCB, i. 850 852; RL, iii. 1780 89.
2010-07-19 18:44 Читать похожую статью
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • Контрольная работа
  • © Помощь студентам
    Образовательные документы для студентов.