Dialogue Against the Marcionites, Exhortation to Martyrdom (Wettstein 1674)

...words I shall add: Constantine was created Emperor, the first Christian emperor, except for Philip, who, it seems to me, was appointed a Christian for only a very few years, and for this purpose alone: that the thousandth year of Rome might be dedicated to Christ rather than to idols. Zonaras alone gave the celebrated Casaubon occasion to think otherwise; he speaks of this matter with hesitation. Ἐπαναζεύξας δ' ὁ Φίλιππος εὐμενὴς ἦν τοῖς χριστιανοῖς, μάλιστα δὲ καὶ ἐνίκε καὶ προσετέθη τῇ πίστει χριστοῦ, ὥστε καὶ εὐχῶν ἐπ' ἐκκλησίας κοινωνῆσαι χριστιανοῖς, καὶ ἀσμένως ἐξαγορεύσαι, ὁπότε οἱ ἡμάρτητο. Philip, having returned from the Persian war, was well-disposed toward the Christians, and—what is most important—according to certain authors, he came to the Christian faith, so that he would join the Christians in prayer in the church and would willingly confess whatever sins he had committed. After he had narrated his repentance from the mouth of others, he adds: Φασὶ μέντοι τινὲς, τοῦτον εἶναι, τὸν πατέρα τῆς μάρτυρος Εὐγενίας, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν δόξαν ταύτην πεπλάνηνται. ἔπαρχος μὲν γὰρ κἀκεῖνος γενέσθαι ἱστόρηται, ἀλλ' Αἰγύπτου, καὶ οὐ τοῦ δορυφορικοῦ καὶ μετὰ τὴν εἰς χριστὸν πίστιν ἐκείνου ἀποποιησαμένου τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰς χριστὸν ὁμολογίας τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ μαρτυρίῳ κεκόσμηται. Some say, however, that he is the father of the martyr Eugenia, but they are mistaken regarding this opinion. For while it is recorded that he was indeed a prefect, it was of Egypt, not the Praetorian Guard; and after he accepted the Christian faith and laid down his office, he bravely confessed Christ and was adorned with a martyr’s crown. These are his words in his Annals, vol. 2, p. 229. Whether, by these words, Emperor Philip is denied to have been a Christian, or whether he is rather distinguished from another Philip, the Prefect of Egypt and father of the martyr Eugenia (so that both were Christians nonetheless), let the more learned judge. To me, certainly, the latter is more probable. Meanwhile, it must not be passed over in silence that the most learned man concedes that Otacilia Severa, Philip's wife, was imbued with the Christian religion. See his notes in the aforementioned location. And although Zonaras might assert what he wishes, I think that—if I am not mistaken—more credit should be given to Eusebius and Jerome, as they were far closer to Philip's times; and one would have to yield to the warning of Philastrius of Brescia, who says: "It is more just to agree with many historiographers who concur in one thing, rather than with two or three who disagree, because those many have spoken more truly than the two." Book on Heresies, p. 63.

But let us hear by what reasons those ancients confirm their assertion: They produce, first, the penance publicly performed by the Emperor at the Feast of Easter in the solemn gathering of the pious; Eusebius describes it as most well-known in his own time and spoken of by the mouth of all, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 6, c. 34. Certainly, Eusebius knew that heathens were living in his time who could easily refute him if he were reporting falsehoods. Also, noble historians lived after him who did not refute any such thing in Eusebius or others; for he does not assert this alone, but many agree with him: Georgius Syncellus in his Chronicle, p. 362; Zonaras recounts the same things; Gregory Abulpharagius, History of Dynasties VII, p. 80; and also Urspergens and Gobelinus in the Cosmodromium, age 6, c. 11, who both add that it was done at Rome, and that the Philips (father and son) were corrected by the Roman Pontiff Fabian. But this is left to its own authors. I, with Zonaras leading the way, prefer to agree with the most learned Huet; namely, that Philip, returning from the Persian war, publicly professed Christianity in Syria or some neighboring Eastern region. For if it had happened in Rome, heathen writers and likewise Eusebius would by no means have passed it over in silence.