I i A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE TO THE END OF THE SIXTH CENTURY A.D., WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECTS AND HERESIES EDITED BY HENRY WAGE, D.D. DEAN OF CANTERBURY AND WILLIAM C. PIERCY, M.A. DEAN AND CHAPLAIN OF WHITELANDS COLLEGE, S.W. IN ONE VOLUME BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY 191 1 PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LU., LONDON AND AYLESBURY, iNGLAND. PREFACE This volume is designed to render to a wider circle, alike of clergy and of laity, the service which, as is generally admitted, has been rendered to the learned v.'orld by The Dictionary of Christian Biography. Literature, Sects, and Doctrines, published under the editorship of Dr. Wace and the late Dr. Wm. Smith, about twenty years ago, in four large volumes. That work covered the whole of the first eight centuries of the Christian era, and was planned on a very comprehensive scale. It aimed at giving an account, not merely of names of importance, but of all names, however small, con- cerned in the Christian literature of those eight centuries ; and to illustrate its extent and minuteness, it may be enough to mention that no fewer than 596 Johns are recorded in due order in its columns. The surviving Editor may be pardoned for expressing his satisfaction that the work is now recognized, abroad as well as at home, as a valuable work of reference, being constantly quoted alike in the great Protestant Cyclopaedia of Herzog, in its third edition now happily complete, and in the Patrology of the learned Roman Catholic Professor at Munich, Dr. Bardenhewer. To the generous band of great English scholars to whose unstinted labours the chief excellences of that work are due, and too many of whom have now passed away, it is, or it would have been, a welcome satisfaction to find it described in the Patrology of that scholar as "very useful, relatively complete and generally reliable." * But that work was mainly adapted to the use of men of learning, and was unsuited, both by its size and expense, and by the very wideness of its range, for the use of ordinary readers, or even for the clergy in general. In the first place, the last two centuries of the period which it covered, although of immense interest in the history of the Church, as including the origins of the Teutonic civilization of Europe, have not an equal interest with the first six as exhibiting primitive Christianity in its purer forms. With the one important exception of John of Damascus, the Fathers of the Church, so called, alike in East and West, fall within the first six centuries, and in the West the series is closed by St. Gregory the Great, who died in the year 604. English divines accordingly, since the days of Bp. Jewel, have, like Bp. Cosin, appealed to the first six centuries of the Church as exhibiting, in doctrine as well as in practice, subject to Holy Scripture, the standards of primitive Christianity. Those six centuries, consequently, have a special interest for all Christian students, and part- • Edition of 1908, published in English at Freiburg im Breisgau, and at St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A., translated from the second German edition by Dr. T. J. Shahan, Professor of Church History in the Catholic University of America, p. ir. 235337 vi PREFACE icularly for those of our own Church, and deserve accordingly some special treatment. It was thought, therefore, that a Dictionary of Christian Biography which confined itself to this formative and authoritative period of the Church's history would be of special interest and service, not only to the clergy, but also to the Christian laity and to students for Holy Orders. But the limitation of such a work to this period at once disembarrassed our pages of the mass of Teutonic, and sometimes almost pagan, names with which, after the settlement of the barbarians in Europe, we were over- whelmed ; and thus of itself rendered it possible to bring the work into much narrower compass. Moreover, a mass of insignificant names, which the principles of scholarly completeness obliged us to introduce into the larger Dictionary, were not needed for the wider circle now in contemplation. They were useful and necessary for purposes of learned reference, but they cast no light on the course and meaning of Church history for ordinary readers. We have had to exercise a discretion (which may sometimes seem to have been arbitrary) in selecting, for instance, from the 596 Johns just mentioned those which were the most valuable for such readers as we had in view ; and for the manner in which we have exercised that discretion we must trust ourselves to the indulgent judgment of our readers. The publisher gave us generous limits ; but it seemed to him and to ourselves indispensable for the general usefulness of the Dictionary that it should be restricted to one volume ; and we were thus, with respect to the minor names, obliged to omit many which, though of some interest, seemed to be such as could be best dispensed with. By omissions of this nature we have secured an object Avhich will, we are sure, be felt to be of inestimable value. We have been able to retain, with no material abbreviation, the admirable articles on the great characters of early Church history and literature which were contributed, with an unselfish devotion which can never be sufficiently acknowledged, by the great scholars who have been the glory of the last generation or two of English Church scholarship, and some of whom are happily still among us. To mention only some of the great contributors who have passed away, such articles as those of Bp. Westcott on Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Bp. Lightfoot on Eusebius, Archbp. Benson on St. Cyprian, Dr. Bright on St. Athanasius and kindred subjects. Dr. Salmon on varied subjects of the first importance, Bp. Stubbs on early English history, and some by the learned Professor Lipsius of Jena, have a permanent value, as the ap- preciations of great characters and moments of Church history and literature by scholars and divines who have never been surpassed, and will hardly be equalled again, in English sacred learning. We deemed it one of the greatest services which such a work as this could render that it should make ac- cessible to the wide circle in question these unique masterpieces of patristic and historical study. It has therefore been one of our first objects to avoid, as far as possible, any abbreviation of the body of these articles. We have occasionally ventured on slight verbal condensation in secondary passages, and we have omitted some purely technical discussions of textual points and of editions. But in the main the reader is here placed in possession, within the compass of a moderate volume, of what will probably be allowed to be at once the most valuable and the most interesting series of monographs. PREFACE vii on the chief characters and incidents of early Church history, ever con- tributed to a single undertaking by a band of Christian scholars. We feel it no more than a duty to pay this tribute of gratitude and admira- tion to the great divines, to whose devotion and learning all that is per- manently valuable in these pages is due. and we are confident that their monographs, thus rendered generally available, will prove a permanent possession of the highest value to English students of Church history. We must further offer the expression of our cordial gratitude to several living scholars, who have contributed new articles of similar importance to the present volume, in place of some in the original edition which the lapse of time or other circumstances had rendered less valuable than the rest. In particular, our warmest thanks are due to Dr. Robertson, the present Bp. of Exeter, who has substituted for the sketch of St. Augustine contributed to the original edition by an eminent French scholar, M. de Pressense, a study of that great Father, similar in its thoroughness to the other great monographs just mentioned. W^e arc also deeply indebted to the generosity of Chancellor Lias for fresh studies of such important subjects as Arius and Monophysitism ; and a valuable account of the Nes- torian Church has been very kindly contributed by the Rev. W. A. Wigram, who, as head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission, possesses unique qualifications for dealing with the subject. We have to thank also the eminent learning of Dr. A. J. Mason for an article on Gaudentius of Brescia, who was unaccountably omitted from the larger work, and whose name has of late acquired new interest. The gratitude of the Editors, is also specially due to Dr. Knowling and Dr. Gee, of Durham University, for their assistance in some cases in which articles required to be supplemented or corrected by the most recent learning. In all cases where the writers of the original articles are still living they were afforded the opportunity, if they desired it, of revising their work and bringing it up to date, and of checking the condensations : though the Editors and not the writers must take the responsibility for the latter and also, in most cases, for bibliographical additions. The Editors desire gratefully to record their appreciation of the assistance thus readily and kindly rendered by most of the original writers who are still spared to us. and, as an example, we are glad to thank the Rev. E. B. Birks for his very thorough revision of his article on the Epistle to Diognetus. Cross-references are inserted, where needed, on the principle adopted in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (to which this is intended to be a companion volume in size, appearance, and price) — namely, the name of the article to which a cross-reference is intended is printed in capitals within brackets, but without the brackets when it occurs in the ordinary course of the text. In the headings of articles the numbers in brackets after names which are common to more than one person are retained as in the large edition, to facilitate reference to that edition when desired, and also to indicate that there were other persons of the same name. It was not consistent with the limits of the work to retain in all cases the minute bibliography sometimes furnished in the larger edition. But, Yiii PREFACE on the other hand, an endeavour has been made to give references, at the end of articles, to recent publications of importance on each subject ; and in this endeavour the Editors must express their great indebtedness to the valuable Patrology of Professor Bardenhewer, already referred to, and to the admirable third edition of Herzog and Hauck's Protestant Cyclopaedia, and occasionally to the parallel Roman Catholic Cyclopaedia of Wetzer and Welte, edited by Cardinal Hergenrother. It may be permissible, in referring to these auxiliary sources, to express a deep satisfaction at the increasing co-operation, in friendly learning, of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars, and to indulge the hope that it is an earnest of the gradual growth of a better understanding between those two great schools of thought and life. The Editors cannot conclude without paying a final tribute of honour and gratitude to the generous and devoted scholar whose accurate labours were indispensable to the original work, as is acknowledged often in its Pre- faces, and who rendered invaluable assistance in the first stage of the pre- paration of the present volume — the Rev. Charles Hole, late Lecturer for many years in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. Dr. Wace hoped to have had the happiness of having his own name associated with that of his old teacher, friend, and colleague on the title-page of this volume, and he laments that death has deprived him of this privilege. He cannot, however, sufficiently express his sense of obligation to his colleague, Mr. Piercy, for the ability, skill, and generous labour without which the pro- duction of the work would have been impossible. LIST OF WRITERS Initials A.H.D.A. The Right Hon. A. H. Dyke Acland. LL.D. Hon. Fellow of Balliol College, 0.\ford. M.F.A. The late Ri:v. M. F. .\rgles, M.A. Formerly Principal of St. Stephen's House, O.xford. C.J.B. Rev. C. J. Ball, M..\. Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford; Rector of Blechingdon. J.B— y. The late Rev. J. Barmbv, B.D. Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, and Rector of Pilkington. S.A.B. S. A. Bennett, Esq., B..\. Of Lincoln's Inn. E.W.B. The late Most Rev. E. W. Benson, D.D. Formerly .Archbishop of Canterbury. E.B.B. Rev. E. B. Birks, M..\.. Vicar of Kellington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. C.W.B. The late Rev. C. W. Boase, ^LA. Formerly Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. W.B. The late Rev. Canon W. Bright, D.D. Formerly Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. T.R.B. The late Right Hon. T. R. Buchanan, M.A., M.P. Fellow of .A.11 Souls' College, Oxford. D.B. The late Rev. D. Butler, U.A. Formerly Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. J.G.C. The lite Rev. ]. G. Cazenove, D.D. Formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. M.B.C. Rev. M. B. Cowell, M.A. Vicar of Ash Bocking. F.D. F. H. Blackburne Daniel, Esq. Of Lincoln's Inn. G.W.D. The Ven. G. W. Daniell, M.A. .'Vrchdeacon of Kiugston-on-Thamcs. T.W.D. The late Rev. T. W. Davids. Upton. L.D. Rev. L. Davidson, M..A. Rector of Stanton St. John, Oxford. J.LL.D. Rev. J. Ll. Davies, D.Litt. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. CD. Rev. C. Deedes, M.A. Prebendary of Chichester. W.P.D, The late Rev. W. P. Dickson, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Glasgow. E.S.Ff. The late Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes, M..\. Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary's. A.P.F. The late Right Rev. A. P. Forbes, D.C.L. Formerly Bishop of Brechin. W.H.F. The Very Rev. and Hon. W. H. Fremantle, D.D. Dean of Ripon. J.M.F. The late Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. ix X LIST OF WRITERS INITIAI^ J.G. Rev. J. Gammack. M.A. Rector of St. James's, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. H.G. Rev. H. Gee, D.D. Master of University College, Durham. C.G. The Right Rev. C. Gore, D.D. Bishop of Birmingham. J.Gw. Rev. J. Gwvnn, D.D., D.C.L. Regius Professor of Divinity, T.C.D. A.W.H. The late Rev. A. W. Haddan, B.D. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. T.R.H. The late Rev. T. R. Halcomb, .M.A. Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. C.H. The late Rev. C. Hole, B.A. Formerly Rector of Loxbear, and Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. H.S.H. Rev. Canon H. ScoTr Holland, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. H. The late Rev. F. J. A. Hort, D.D. Formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. D.R.J. The late Rev. D. R. Jo.-es. Oxford. R.J.K. Rev. Canon R. J. Knowling, D.D. Professor of Divinity, Durham. j.j.L. Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A. Chancellor of Llandafi Cathedral. L. The Right Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. R.A.L. The late R. A. Lipsius, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, University of Jena. W.L. Rev. W. Lock, D.D. Ireland Professor of Exegesis, Oxford ; Warden of Keble College. J.H.L. The late Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. G.F.M. The late Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. Formerly Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. A.C.M. A. C. Madam, Esq., M.A. Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. S.M. The late Rev. S. Mansel, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. A.J.M. Rev. A. J. Mason, D.D. Master of Pembro'ice College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. W.M. The late Rev. W. Milligan, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen. G.H.M. The late Rev. G. H. Moberly, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. T.D.C.M. The late Rev. T. D. C. Morse. Formerly Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. H.G.C.M. The Right Rev. H. G. C. Moule, D.D. Bishop of Durham. J.R.M. J. R. Mozley, Esq., M.A. Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. F.P. The Right Rev. F, Paget, D.D. Bishop of Oxford. H.W.P. The late Rev. H. W. Phillott, M.A. Formerly Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. W.C.P. Rev. W. C. Piercy, M.A. Dean and Chaplain of Whitelands College, S.W. E.H.P. The late Rev. E. H. Plujiftre, D.D. Formerly Dean of Wells. P.O. The late Rev. P. Onslow, B.A. Formerly Rector of Upper Sapey. J.R. The late Rev. Canon J. Raine, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Durham University. LIST OF WRITERS xi Initials H.R.R. The Kite Rev. H. R. Reynolds, I>.D. Formerly Principal of Cheshunt College. A.R. The Right Rev. A. Robertson, D.D. Bishop of Exeter. G.S. The late Rev. G. Salmon, D.D. Formerlv Regius Professor of Divinitv and Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. P.S. The late Rev. P. Schaff. Bible House, New York. W.M.S. The Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. Formerly Archdeacon of London. I.G.S. Rev. I. G. Smith, LL.D. Formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. R.P.S. The late Verv Rev. R. P. Smith, D.D. Formerly Dean of Canterbury. G.T.S. The late Rev. G. T. Stokes, .M.A. Formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. S. The late Right Rev. W. Stubbs, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Oxford. E.S.T. The Right Rev. E. S. Talbot, D.D. Bishop of Winchester. R.St.J.T. The late Rev. R. St. J. Tyrvvhitt. Formerly Student of Christchurch, Oxford. E.V. The late Rev. Canon E. Venables. Formerly Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. K.W. The Very Rev. H. Wage, D.D. Dean of Canterbury. M..\.\V. Mrs. Humfrhy Ward. Stocks House, Tring. H.W.W. The Ven. H. W. Watkins, D.D. Prof, of Hebrew, Durham University, and Archdeacon of Durham. W. or B.F.W. The late Right Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. W..\.W. Rev. W. A. Wigram, M.A. Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyria. H.A.W. Rev. H. A. Wilson, M.A. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. J.W. The Right Rev. J. Wordsworth, D.D. Bishop of Salisbury. E.M.Y. The late Rev. E. M. Young, M.A. Formerly Headmaster of Sherborne School. DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY Abercius ('AifV*'"'- "Aoiipvio?, Wov^pKio^, etc. ; I. at. Avircius, or Avercius ; on the form and origin, see Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd -r.i, pp. 26S, 3Q4, and Zahn, art. " Aver- -." Rcalencvclopddie fiir protest. Theol. und ■.'che. Hauck). The Life of the saint, de- . ibed as bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia in tlie u-ae of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, as given by Svmeon Metaphrastes and in the Bollandist Ada Sanctorum, Oct. 22. is full of worthless 1 fantastic tales. But the epitaph which .\cts incorporate, placed, according to the : ly, on the altar brought from Rome by the ueiiion whom the saint had driven out of the emperor's daughter, is of great value, and the discovery of some of the actual fragments of the inscription may well be called " a romance of archaeology." For this redis- covery our thanks are due to the rich labours of Prof. Ramsay. The fact that Abercius was described as bp. of Hierapolis at the time mentioned above had contributed to hesitation as to the genuineness of the epitaph. But Ramsay (Bulletin de correspondance hel- lenique, Juillet 1882) pointed out that Hiera- polis had been frequently confounded with Hieropolis ; and he also published in the same journal a metrical and early Christian epitaph of a certain Alexander (.\.d. 216), discovered at Hieropolis, and evidently copied from the epitaph of Abercius, as given in his Life. As to the copying, there can be no doubt, for the third line of the epitaph of Alexander, son of Antonius, will not scan, owing to the substi- tution of his name for that of Abercius (Light- foot, Apost. Fathers^, i. p. 479 ; Headlam in Authority and Archaeology, pp. 307 ff., 1899). Ramsay's attention being drawn to the earlier epitaph, he collected various topographical notices in the Life of the saint, which pointed to Hieropolis, near Synnada (not Hierapolis on the Maeander), and he further established the case for the former by finding, in 1883, in the bath-room at some hot springs near Hieropolis, a small portion of the epitaph of Abercius himself on the fragment of an altar- shaped tomb ; the hot springs in their posi- tion near the city exactly correspond with the position of the hot springs described in the Life. We have thus fortunately a three- fold help in reconstructing the text of the whole epitaph — (i) the text in the Life; (2) the rediscovered fragments in the stone ; (3) the epitaph on the tomb of Alexander. There is much to be said for the identifica- tion of Abercius with the Avircius Marcellus (Eua. H. E. V. 16) to whom the extracts of ABERCIUS the anonymous writer against Montanus are dedicated. We cannot be sure as to the date of these extracts, but there is reason to place them towards the close of the reign of Commodus, 180-192, and the epitaph of Abercius must at least have been earlier than 216, the date of the epitaph of Alexander. But the writer of the extracts addresses the person to whom he dedicates his work as a person of authority, although he does not style him a bishop (but see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 483), who had urged him a very long time ago to write on the subject. Avircius Marcellus might therefore have well flourished in the reign of M. Aurelius, and might have visited Rome at the time men- tioned in the legend, a.d. 163. Further, in the extracts mention is made by the writer of one Zoticus of Otrous, his " fellow-presby- ter," and Otrous was in the neighbourhood of this Hieropolis (for the identification, see further Lightfoot and Zahn, u.s. ; Headlam, U.S. ; Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), p. 394). Against the attempt of Ficker to prove that the epitaph was heathen, Sitzungsberichte d. Bert. Akad. 1895, pp. 87-112, and that of Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. 4b, p. 21, to class it as partly heathen and partly Christian, see Zahn, u.s., and further in Neue Kirchliche Zeilschrift, 1895, pp. 863-886 ; also the criticism of Ramsay, quoted by Headlam, U.S. Both external and internal evidence are in favour of a Christian origin, and we have in this epitaph what Ramsay describes, C. R. E. pp. 437 ff., as " a testimony, brief, clear, emphatic, of the truth for which Avir- cius had contended — the one great figure on the Catholic side produced by the Phrygian church during this period," a man whose wide experience of men and cities might in itself have well marked him out as such a champion. The faithful, i.e. the sacred writings, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, the miraculous birth of our Lord (the most probable reference of irapOifos d7»'7;). His omnipresent and omni- scient energy, the fellowship of the members of the church, not only in Rome but else- where — all these (together with the mixed cup, wine and water ; the prayer for the departed ; the symbolic IX9TIS, one of its earliest instances) have a place in the picture of early Christian usage and belief gained from this one epitaph ; however widely Aber- cius travelled, to the far East or West, the same picture, he assures us, met his gaze. We thus recover an instructive and enduring monument of Christian life in the 2nd cent., all the more remarkable because it is pre- 1 2 abgAr sented to us, not in any systematic form, but as the natural and simple expression of a pure and devout soul. For full literature, see Zahn, M.S. ; for the development of the legend from the facts mentioned in the epitaph, and for the reconstruction of the text by Light- foot and Ramsay, see three articles by the latter in Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), also Ram- say's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 722. In addition to literature above, cf. art. by Lightfoot in Expositor, i. (3rd ser.), pp. 3 ff. ; and Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. pp. 10 ff. Prof. V. Bartlet discusses Harnack's hypo- thesis in the Critical Review, April 1896, and regards it as at present holding the field ; though he finds Harnack's elimination of any reference to Paul the Apostle in the inscrip- tion quite unintelhgible. Even Schmiedel (Encycl. Bibl. ii. 1778) refers unhesitatingly to the inscription as Christian. See further Dr. Swete's art. /. T. S. July 1907, p. 502, on Avircius and prayers for the departed. The following is a translation of the epitaph : " Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of men (ijjai'epux; v. I. xaipo.) a resting-place for my body — Avircius by name, a disciple of the pure Shepherd, who on the mountains and plains feedeth the flocks of His sheep, who hath eyes large and be- holding all things. For He was my Teacher, teaching me {SLSa.(jK(oi>, so Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the faithful writings ; who sent me to Rome to behold the King Oao-iAJjai', so Ramsay, but I,ightfoot /3a(riA»)ai', Zahn, 0j.(TiAii di'a^pijTai), and to see the Qvieen in golden robes and golden sandals, and there, too, I saw a people bearing a shining seal (a reference to Bap- tism). And I saw the plain of Syria and all its cities, even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates, and everywhere I had fellow-worshippers (rrwoixiieti.^ , so Ivightfoot and Ramsay ; cmi'oSiiTjr, Zahn, referring to Paul). With Paul in my hands / followed (i.e. the writings of Paul, Ramsay ; but I,ightfoot and Di Rossi apparently ' with Paul as my comrade ' ; whilst Zahn conjectures cVoxor, or rather en' 6xco>' instead of ctto^dji'), while Faith everywhere led the way, and everywhere placed before me food, the Fish from the fountain, mighty, pure, which a spotless Virgin grasped (Ramsay refers to the Virgin Mary, but see also Lightfoot and Farrar). And this she {i.e. Faith) gave to the friends to eat continually, having excellent wine, giving the mixed cup with bread. These words, I, Avircius, standing by, bade to be thus written ; I was in fact in my seventy- second year. On seeing this let every one who thinks with him {i.e. who is also an anti-Montanist, so Ramsay ; I,ightfoot and Farrar simply ' fellow- Christian ') pray for him {i.e. Avircius). But no one shall place another in my tomb, but if so, he shall pay 2000 gold pieces to the Romans, and 1000 gold pieces to my excellent fatherland Hierapolis " (so Ramsay, vide Expositor, ix. 3rd ser. p. 271, for a justification of this reading). [r.j.k.] Abgar. [Thaddaeus.] Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal defect known as 6 fj.oi'6(pda\fios. the pupil and biographer of Eusebius the church historian. He succeeded his master as bishop, a.d. 340 (Socr. H. E. ii. 4 ; Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He is chiefly known to us as the bitter and uncom- promising adversary of Cyril of Jerusalem, and as the leader of an intriguing band of ambitious prelates. The events of his life show Acacius to have been a man of great intellectual abiHty but unscrupulous. After the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, c. 342, he became the head of the courtly Arian party, and is thought by some to be the person styled ACACIUS by Greg. Naz. {Orat. xxi. 21) " the tongue of the Arians," George of Cappadocia being " the hand." He assisted in consecrating Cyril, a.d. 351, and in accordance with the 7th Nicene Canon claimed a right of priority for the metro- political see of Caesarea over that of Jeru- salem. This Cyril refused to yield. Acacius^ supported by the Palestinian bishops, deposed Cyril on frivolous grounds, and expelled him from Jerusalem, a.d. 358. [Cyril of Jeru- salem.] (Soz. iv. 23 ; Theod. ii. 26.) Acacius attended the council of Antioch, A.D. 341 (Soz. iii. 5), when in the presence of the emperor Cons'tantius " the Golden Basil- ica " was dedicated by a band of ninety bishops, and he subscribed the ambiguous creeds then drawn up from which the term Homoousion and all mention of " substance " were carefully excluded. With other bishops of the Eusebian party he was deposed at the council of Sardica, a.d. 347. They refused to submit to the sentence, and withdrew to Philippopolis, where they held a council of their own, deposing their deposers, including Pope Julius and Hosius of Cordova (Theod. ii. 26 ; Socr. ii. 16 ; Soz. iii. 14 ; Labb. Cone. ii. 625-699). According to Jerome {Vir. III. 98), his influence with the emperor Constan- tius was considerable enough to nominate Felix (the antipope) to the see of Rome at the fall of Liberius, a.d. 357. Acacius took a leading place among the intriguing prelates, who succeeded in spHtting into two the oecumenical council which Constantius had proposed to summon, and thus nullifying its authority. While the Western bishops were assembling at Rimini, a.d. 359, he and his brethren of the East gathered at Seleucia, where he headed a tiurbulent party, called after him Acacians. After the majority had confirmed the semi-Arian creed of Antioch (" Creed of the Dedication "), Acacius brought forward a Confession (preserved by Athan- asius, de Synod, § 29 ; Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 22) rejecting the terms Homoousion and Ho- moiousion " as aUen from Scripture," and anathematizing the term " Anomoeon," but distinctly confessing the " likeness " of the Son to the Father. This formula the semi- Arian majority rejected, and becoming ex- asperated by the disingenuousness of Acacius, who interpreted the " likeness of the Son to the Father " as " likeness in will alone," ofioiov Kara ttjv ^ov\-r)ii. Under these circumstances the con- demnation of Acacius, which had been made III the name of the Pope, was repeated in the name of the council of Chalcedon, and the s. hism was complete * (485)- Acacius took 11 ' heed of the sentence up to his death in 480, which was followed by that of Mongus in 1 i->. and of Zeno in 401- Fravitas (Flavitas, I Livianus), his successor, during a very short patriarchate, entered on negotiations with 1-. lix, which led to no result. The policy of Ai acius broke down when he was no longer al'lc to animate it. In the course of a few \ ,ars all for which he had laboured was un- d 'uc. The Henoticon failed to restore unity t ' the Fast, and in 519 the emperor Justin -ubinitted to pope Hormisdas, and the con- il.nination of Acacius was recognized by the (. "ustantinopolitan church. Tillemont has given a detailed history of the whole controversy, up to the death of Fravitas, in his Memoires, vol. xvi., but with a natural bias towards the Roman side. The original documents, exclusive of the histories of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are for the most part collected in the 58th volume of Migne's Palrologia. See also Hefele, Koiiz. Gesch. Bd. ii. ["'.] Acephali (from d and K€(pa\ri, those without a head or leader) is a term applied : — (i) To the bishops of the oecumenical council of Ephesus in 431, who refused to follow either St. Cvril or John of Antioch— the leaders of the two parties in the Nestorian controversy. (2) To a radical branch of Monophysites, who rejected not only the oecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451, but also the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Chris- tians of Egypt, to unite the orthodox and the Monophvsites. Peter Mongus, the Monophy- site patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this compromise [Ac.\cius (7)] ; for this reason many of his party, especially among the monks, separated from him, and were called Acephali. They were condemned, under Jus- tinian, by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as schismatics, who sinned against the churches, the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Cone. torn. viii. p. 891 sqq. ; Harduin, Cone. torn, ii. 1203 sqq. ; W'alch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii. ; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp. 549. 744. (3) To the clerici vagi, i.e. clergy- men belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. Hispal. de Offic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert's Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian Councils: see Du Cange) \D. C. A. art. Vagi Clerici]. (4) It is said to be used sometimes for avroKicpaXoi. [D. C. A. art. AUTOCF.PHALl.] [r.S.] Adamantius (1). [Origen.] AeriUS, 'Ae>05, founder of the heretical sect of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374-376. He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of EusTATHiis OF Sebaste in Pontus. While • This appears to be the best explanation of the "double excommunication" of Acacius. Cf. Tillemont, .Memoires, xvi. n. sj, pp. 764 f . AETIUS 5 they were living an ascetic life together, the bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each of the friends was a candidate for the office. The choice fell on Eustathius. This was never forgiven by .\erius. l-.ustathius endea- voured to soften' his friend's disappointment by at once ordaining .-Verius presbyter, and setting him over the hospital established at Sebaste (^(voSox^^on, or TrTwxorpo^fi'oi'). Hut all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw up his charge, deserted the hospital, and openly published grave accusations against his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius widened into a rupture with the church. Aerius and his numerous followers openly separated from their fellow-Christians, and professed dnoTa^ia, or the renimciation of all worldlv goods. They were consequently denied not only admission to the churches, but even access to the towns and villages, and they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, or in caves and ravines, and hold their re- ligious assemblies in the open air exposed to the severity of Armenian winters. Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius {Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, merelv epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went so fearlessly to the root of much that the church was beginning to cling to, that we cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of Epiphanius with regard to his teaching. Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts, (i) The first, with which the name of Aerius has been chiefly identified in modern times, is the assertion of the equality of bishops and presbyters, fiia rd^is, fx-a Tifiri. tii> d^iu>fj.a. (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded as pernicious. If they availed for the de- parted, no one need trouble himself to live holily : he would only have to provide, by bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. (4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian man should fast when he felt it to be for his soul's good : appointed days of fasting were relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose unconfirmed authority is very small, con- founds the Aerians with the Encratites, and asserts that thev practised abstinence from food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 72). Consult Schrockh, Christliche Kirch. Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226-234 ; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. iii. pp. 221 seq. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 461-563 (Clark's trans.) ; Herzog. Real- encycl. vol. i. 165 ; Tillemont, Hist. eccl. vol. ix. pp. 87 seq. [e. v.] AetiUS ('AMos), the founder and head of the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, on account of the boldness of his reasonings on the nature of (iod, was affixed the surname of " the ungodly," d^fos (Soz. iii. 15)- He was the first to carry out the doctrines of Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposi- tion both to Homoousians and Homoiousians maintained that the Son was unlike, dvdpLoios, the Father, from which his followers took the name of Anomoeans. They were also known as Eunomians, from his amanuensis Euno- Mius, the principal apologist of the party ; and 6 AETIUS as Heterusiasts and Exukontians, as affirming that the Son was e^ erepas ovaias from the Father, and created e^ ovk 6vtuv. The events of his singularly vagrant and chequered career are related from very differ- ent points of view by the Eunomian Philos- torgius, and the orthodox writers Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen. We must regard Aetius as a bold and unprin- cipled adventurer, endowed with an indomit- able love of disputation, which led him into incessant arguments on the nature of the God- head, the person of our Lord, and other trans- cendental subjects, not only with the orthodox but with the less pronounced Arians. He was born at Antioch. His father, dying insolvent, left Aetius, then a child, and his mother in extreme destitution (Philost. H. E. iii. 15 ; cf. Valesius's notes; Suidas, sub. voc. "AeVios). According to Gregory Nyssen, he became the slave of a woman named Ampelis ; and having obtained his freedom in some disgraceful manner, became a travelling tinker, and after- wards a goldsmith. Having been convicted of substituting copper for gold in an ornament entrusted to him for repair, he gave up his trade, and attaching himself to an itinerant quack, picked up some knowledge of medicine. He met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, whose large fees placed Aetius above the reach of want. He now began to take rank as a regular and recognized practitioner at Antioch (Greg. Nys. adv. Etinom. lib. i. vol. ii. p. 293). Philostorgius merely tells us that he devoted himself to the study of philosophy and dia- lectics, and became the pupil of Paulinus the Arian bishop, recently removed from Tyre to Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius at- tached himself to the Aristotelian form of philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks {Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 443), the strife between Aristotelianism and Platonism among theologians seems to have begun. His chief study was the Categories of Aristotle, the scope of \yhich, according to Socrates {H. E. ii. 33), he entirely misconceived, dra\\-ing from them soph- istical arguments repudiating the prevailing Platonic mode of argument used by Origen and Clemens Alex. On the death of Paulinus his protector, c. 324, he was banished to Anazar- bus in Cilicia, where he gained his livelihood by his trade. Here his dialectic skill charmed a grammarian, who instructed him more fully, receiving repayment by his menial services. Aetius tried his polemic powers against his benefactor, whom he put to public shame by the confutation of his interpretation of Scrip- ture. On the ignominious dismissal which natu- rally followed, Athanasius, the Arian bishop of the place, opened his doors to the outcast, and read the Gospels with him. Aetius also read St. Paul's Epistles at Tarsus with Antonius, who, like Athanasius, was a disciple of Lucian, Arius's master. On Antonius's elevation to the episcopate, Aetius returned to Antioch, where he studied the prophets, particularly Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop of that see, also a pupil of Lucian. A storm of unpopularity soon drove him from Antioch to Cilicia ; but having been defeated in argument by one of the Borborian Gnostics, he betook himself to Alexandria, where he soon recovered his character as an invincible AETIUS adversary by vanquishing the Manichean leader Aphthonius. Aphthonius, according to Philostorgius {H. E. iii. 15), only survived his defeat seven days. Here Aetius took up his former professions, studying medicine and working as a goldsmith. On the return of St. Athanasius to Alex- andria in 349, Aetius retired to Antioch, of which his former teacher Leontius was now bishop. By him Aetius was ordained deacon, c. 350 (Philost. iii. 17 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; Athan. de Synod. § 38, Oxf. trans, p. 137 ; Suidas, S.V.). His ordination was protested against by Flavian and Diodorus, and he was inhibited from the exercise of his ministry (Theod. H. E. ii. 24). Epiphanius errone- ously asserts that he was admitted to the diaconate by George of Cappadocia, the in- truding bp. of Alexandria (Epiph. Haeres. Ixxvi. i). Aetius now developed more fully his Anomoean tenets, and he exerted all his influence to induce the Arian party to refuse communion with the orthodox. He also be- gan to withdraw himself from the less pro- nounced Arians (Socr. H. E. ii. 359). This schism in the .\rian party was still further developed at the first council of Sirmium, A.D. 351, where he attacked the respectable semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (Philost. H. E. iii. 16), reducing them to silence. Exas- perated by his discomfiture, Basil denounced Aetius to Gallus. His hfe was spared at the intercession of bp. Leontius ; and being subsequently introduced to Gallus by Theo- philus Blemmys, he was sent by him to his brother JuUan to win him back from the paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallus also appointed him his religious teacher (Philost. H. E. iii. 27 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 294). The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change in the fortunes of Aetius, who returned to Alex- andria in 356 to support the waning cause of Arianism. The see of Athanasius was then occupied by George of Cappadocia, under whom Aetius served as a deacon, and when nominated to the episcopate by two Arian bishops, Serras and Secundus, he refused to be consecrated by them on the ground that they had held communion with the Homoousian party (Philost. iii. 19). Here he was joined by his renowned pupil and secretary Eunomius (Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 299 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 22 ; Philost. H. E. iii. 20). Greater troubles were now at hand for Aetius. Basil of AncvTa de- nounced him to the civil power for his supposed complicity in the treasonable designs of Gallus, and he was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia. The influence of Ursacius and Valens procured his recall ; but he was soon driven again into exile. The hard irreverence of Aetius, and the determination with which he pushed con- clusions from the principles of Arius, shocked the more religious among the Arian party, and forced the bishops to use all measures to crush him. His doctrines were also becoming alarm- ingly prevalent. " Nearly the whole of Antioch had suffered from the shipwreck of Aetius, and there was danger lest the whole (once more) should be submerged " (Letter of George, bp. of Laodicea, ap. Soz. H. E. vL 13). A synod was therefore appointed for Nicomedia in Bithynia. A violent earthquake AFRICANUS, JULIUS and the intrigues of tlie court brouglit about its division into two synods. Tlie West met at Ariminum ; the East at Seleucia in Isauria, A.D. 359. The hitter separated without any definite conchision. "The Arians, senii-Arians, and Anomoeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, and hurled anathemas at one another " (Mil- man, Hist. Christ, iii. c. 8). Whatever triumph was gained rested with the opponents of the Aetians, who appealed to the emperor and the court, and a second general council was sum- moned to meet at Constantinople (Athan. lie Synod. § 10, 12). Of this council Acacius was the leading spirit, but a spUt occurred among the Anomoean followers of Aetius. The party triumphed, but its founder was sent into banishment, first to Mopsuestia, then to Am- blada in Pisidia. Here he gained the good- will of the savage inhabitants by his prayers having, as they supposed, averted a pestilence (Theod. ii. 23 ; Soz. iv. 23, 24 ; Philost. iv. 12 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 301). The death of Constantius, a.d. 361, put an end to Aetius's exile. Julian recalled all the banished bishops and invited Aetius to his court {Ep. Juliani, 31, p. 52, ed. Boisson ; Soz. V. 5), and at the instance of Eudoxius (Philost. iz. 4) presented him with an estate in the is- land of Lesbos. The ecclesiastical censure was taken ofif Aetius by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch (ib. vii. 5), who, with the bishop of his party, compiled a defence of his doctrines (ib. viii.'2). According to Epiphanius (Haer. U.S.), he was consecrated bishop at Constanti- nople, though not to any particular see ; and he and Eunomius consecrated bishops for his own party (Philost. viii. 2). On the death of Jovian, a.d. 364, Valens shewed special favour to Eudoxius, between whom and Aetius and Eunomius a schism had arisen. Aetius in dis- gust retired to his farm in Lesbos {ib. ix. 4). The revolt of Procopius once more en- dangered his hfe. He was accused to the governor, whom Procopius had placed in the island, of favouring the cause of Valens, A.D. 365-366 (ib. ix. 6). Aetius returned to Constantinople. He was the author of several letters to Constantius and others, filled with subtle disquisition on the nature of the Deity (Socr. ii. 35), and of 300 heretical proposi- tions, of which Epiphanius has preserved 47 (Haer. Ixxvi. § 10), with a refutation of each. Hefelo, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [k.v.] Afrlcanus, Julius ('A(ppiKav6s), a Christian writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A great part of his life was passed at Emmaus in Palestine — not, however, the Emmaus of St. Luke (xxiv. 16), as assumed by the ancient authorities (Soz. H. E.v. 21 ; Hieron. in libra de Locis Hebraicis, s.v. '¥J^J.fJ.aovs, ii. p. 439 ; et in Epitaph. Paulae. iv. p. 673) ; but, as Reland has shewn in his Palaeslina, pp. 427, 758 (see also Smith's Diet, of Geogr. s.v. Emmaus), the Emmaus in the plain (i Mace. iii. 40), 22 Roman miles ( = 176 stadia) from Jerusalem. He may have been born a.d. 170 or a little earlier, and died a.d. 240 or a little later. There seems to be no ancient authority for dating his death a.d. 232. Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; Hieron. Ep. ad .Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great work, AFRICANUS. JULIUS 7 a comparatt\e view of sacred and profane his- tory from the creation of the world, demanded extensive reading ; and the fragments that remain refer to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. His only work now extant in a cotniilete state is his letter to Origen referred to by many authors (Eus. H. E. vi. 31 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 63 ; Photius, Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v. 'Aptvoi'6t ; Niceph. Call. H. E. V. 21, and others). The correspondence originated in a discussion between Origen and a certain Bassus, at which .\fricanus was pre- sent, and in which Origen appealed to the au- thority of that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna. Africanus afterwards wrote a short letter to Origen urg- ing several objections to the authenticity of this part of the book ; among others, that the style is different from that of the genuine book, that this section is not in the book as received by the Jews, and that it contains a play on Gk. words which shews that, unlike other O.T. books, it was originally written in Gk. and not in Heb. Origen replied at greater length. That Africanus had any intimate knowledge of Heb. must not be regarded as proved by this letter. The date of the corre- spondence is limited by the facts that Origen writes from Nicomedia, having previously visited Palestine, and refers to his labours in a comparison of the Gk. and Heb. text, indi- cating that he had already published the Hexapla. These conditions are best satisfied by a date c. 238. Not less celebrated is the letter of Africanus to Aristides on the discrepancy in our Saviour's genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. A considerable portion of this has been preserved by Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), and Routh (Ret. Sac. ii. 228) has jniblished this together with a fragment not previously edited. A compressed version of the letter is given also in Eusebii ad Stephanum, Quaest. iv. (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i.). Africanus begins by rejecting a previous explanation that the gene- alogies are fictitious lists, designed to establish our Lord's claim to be both king and priest by tracingHisdesccntin one Gospel from Solomon, in the other from Nathan, who was assumed to be Nathan the prophet. Africanus argues the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and against drawing dog- matic consequences from any statements not founded on historical fact. He then gives his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus) having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan's son, took his wife and raised up seed to him ; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli's son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob's son as stated by St. Matthew. For a critical examination and defence of this solution, which is adopted by St. 8 AFRICANUS, JULIUS Augustine {Retract, lib. ii. c. vii.), see Mill, On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 201. The great work of Africanus was his " accu- rately laboured" (Eus. H. E. vi. 31) treatise on chronology, in five books. As a whole it is lost, but we can form a good idea of its general character from the still remaining Chronicon of Eusebius, which was based upon it, and which undoubtedly incorporates much of it. Euse- bius himself, p. 132, mentions Africanus among his authorities for Jewish history, subsequent to O.T. times. Several fragments of the work of Africanus can be identified by express quota- tions, either by Eusebius in his Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelii, or by other writers, in particular bv Georgius Syncellus in his Chrono- graphia. These have been collected by Gal- landi {Bibl. Vet. Pat. vol. ii.), and more fully by Routh {Rel. Sac. vol. ii.). Christian Apologists had been forced to en- gage in chronological discussions, to remove the heathen contempt of Christianity as a noveltv, bv demonstrating the great antiquity of the Jewish svstem, out of which the Chris- tian sprang. Thus Tatian {Or. ad Graec. c. 39), Theophilus of Antioch {ad. Autol. iii. 21), Clement of Alexandria {Stromata, i. 21), dis- cuss the question of the antiquity of Moses, and, following Josephus {cont. Apion. i. 16), arrive at the conclusion that Moses was a con- temporary of Inachus, and that the Exodus took place 393 years before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Africanus set himself to make a complete synopsis of sacred and pro- fane history from the Creation, and to establish a synchronism between the two. He concludes that Moses and Ogyges were contemporaries. He thinks a connexion between the Ogygian deluge and the plagues of Egypt likely ; and confirms his conclusions by deducing from Polemo, Apion, and Ptolemaeus Mendesius, that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, whose son, Phoroneus, reigned at Argos in the time of Ogyges. Africanus follows the LXX : he counts 2262 years to the Deluge ; he does not recognize the second Cainan ; he places the Exodus A.M. 3707. In computing the years of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius for lengthening the chronology by adding, without authority, 30 years for the elders after Joshua, 40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 years of peace. He thus makes 740 years between the Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord's birth he places A.M. 5500, and two years before our common computation of Anno Domini. But he allows only one year for our Lord's public ministry, and thus dates the Crucifixion a.m. 5531. He calculates the commencement of the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes : from this to the death of our Lord he counts only 475 years, contending that the 70 weeks of Daniel are to be understood as 490 lunar years of 354 days each, equivalent to 475 Julian years. Another interesting passage in the xport^d is one in which he treats of the darkness at the Crucifixion, and shews, in opposition to the Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miracu- lous, and that an eclipse of the sun could not have taken place at the full moon. Lastly, we may notice his statement that there were still in his time remains of Jacob's terebinth at Shechem, Gen. xxxv. 4, held in honour ; and AGAPETUS that Jacob's tent had been preserved in Edessa until struck by lightning in the reign of the emperor Antoninus (Elagabalus ?). Africanus probably had personally visited Edessa, whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere mentions. The work in all probability concluded with the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii. 61) in justification of the form of doxology crvv 'Ayiw llvev/jiaTc. It remains to speak of another work, the Kea-Toi, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Euse- bius {H. E. vi. 31), Photius (i.e.), Suidas {I.e.), and Syncellus (p. 359), perhaps (as ScaUger suggests) quoting the Chronica of Eusebius. According to this authority, the work consisted of nine books ; and it is probably owing to errors of transcribers that we now find Photius enumerating 14 and Suidas 24. The work seems to have received the fanciful name of Cesti, or variegated girdles, from the miscella- neous character of its contents, which em- braced the subjects of geography, natural his- tory, medicine, agriculture, the art of war, etc. The portions that remain have suffered muti- lation and addition by different copyists. The external evidence for ascribing the Cesti and Chronology to the same author is too strong to be easily set aside, and is not without some in- ternal confirmation. Thus the author of the Cesti was better acquainted with Syria than with Libya ; for he mentions the abundance of a certain kind of serpent in Syria, and gives its Syrian name {Vet. Math. p. 290), but when he gives a Libyan word {Geopon. p. 226) he does so on second-hand testimony. And he was a Christian, for he asserts {Geopon. p. 178) that wine may be kept from spoiling by writing on the vessels " the divine words, Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The unlikelihood of Africanus having written such a work be- comes less if we look upon him not as an eccle- siastic, but as a Christian philosopher, pursuing his former studies after his conversion, and entering in his note-books many things more in accordance with the spirit of his own age than with that of ours. Cf. Harnack on J uUus Africanus Sextus in Herzog, 3rd ed. The last edition of the Chronographv is in Gelzer, Sex. Jul. Afr. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1880-1898) ; see also Spitta (Halle, 1877) on the letter to Aristides, Harnack, Lit. i. 507-513 and ii. i, pp. 124 sqq. [G.S.] Agapetus, bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest (Anast. quoted by Chnton, Fasti Romani, p. 763 ; Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum, p. 73). He was already an old man when, six days after the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope in June 535. He began by formally reversing an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own imme- diate predecessors, fulminating anathemas against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, a.d. 530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100). We next find him entering Constantinople on Feb. 19, 536 (Chnt. F. R. p. 765), sent thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the war with which he was threatened by the em- peror Justinian in revenge for the murder of his queen Amalasontha : and we are told that he succeeded in the objects of his mission (Anast. vol. i. p. 102), which must refer to other objects, for he certainly failed to avert AGATHA the war ; Justinian had already incurred such expense as to be unwilling to turn back (I.ib- erat. quoted by Baronius, Aunales KccUsi- astici, vii. p. 314), and as a matter of fact Bcli- sarius took Rome within the year. In 535 Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelit- isra, had been appointed patriarch of Constan- tinople by the influence of Theodora. Agape- tus, on his first arrival, refused to receive An- thimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, and then only as bp. of Trebizond. for he was averse to the practice of translating bishops. At the same time he boldly accused Justinian himself of Monophysitism ; who was fain to satisfy him by signing a " libellus fidei " and professing himself a true Catholic. But the emperor insisted upon his communicating with .\nthimus, and even threatened him with expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus repUed with spirit that he thought he was visit- ing an orthodox prince, and not a second Dio- cletian. Then the emperor confronted him with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, and Mennas substituted ; and this was done without a council, by the single authority of the pope Agapetus ; j ustinian of course allow- ing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theo- dora (Anast. vol. i. p. 102 ; Theophanes, Chronogr. p. 184). Agapetus followed up his victory by denouncing the other heretics who had collected at Constantinople under the patronage of Theodora. He received petitions against them from the Eastern bishops, and from the " monks " in Constantinople, as the Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to be called (Baronius, vii. p. 322). He died on April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765)- His body was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter's basilica, Sept. 17. Five of his letters remain : (i) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Aries, about a dispute of the latter with bp. Con- tumeiiosus (Mansi, viii. p. 856). (2) Same date, to same, " De augendis alimoniis pauperum " {ib. 855). (3) Sept. 9, 535, Reply to a letter from African bishops to his pre- decessor Johannes (ib. 848). (4) Same date, reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had congratulated him on his accession {tb. 850). (5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, announcing the deposition of Anthimus and consecration of jSIennas {ib. 921). Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii. [g.h.m.] Agatha, a virgin martyred at Catana in Sicily under Decius, Feb. 5, 251, according to her Acta ; but under Diocletian according to the Martyrol. and Aldhelm (de Virgin. 22) ; men- tioned by Pope Damasus a.d. 366 (Carm. v.), and by Venantius Fortunatus c. 580 ; inserted in the Canon of the Mass by Gregory the Great according to Aldhelm (u.s., and see also S. Greg. M. Dial. iii. 30) ; and commemorated in a homily by Methodius, c. 900. Her name is in the Carthag. Calendar of c. 450 ; in Ruinart, p. 695 ; and in the black-letter calendar in our Prayer-book. Churches at Rome were dedi- cated to her by pojie Synimachus c. 500 ; by Ricimer a.d. 460, enriched with her relics by Gregory the Great ; and by Gregory II. in 726. She is the patroness of \ialta (Butler's Lu'W of Saints). See also the homily against Peril 0/ Idolatry, p. iii. [a.w.h.] A^es, M. a virgin, 12 or 13 years old, be- AGNOETAE 9 headed at Rome under Diocletian, celebrated by Ambrose (de Offic. i. 41 ; de Virg. ad Mar- cell, i. 2), Jerome (£^. 97 ad dcmetriad.), Augustine (Serin. 273, 286, and 354), Sulp. Sever. (Dial. ii. 14), Prudentius (irepi ^Te((>dvu)v, xiv.), Venant. Fortunatus (Poem. vii. iii. 35), Aldhelm (de Virgin.) ; and by her Acta in Syriac in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 148 seq. ; besides .4cta falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, a doubtful homily of St. Maxim. Taurin., and some verses questionably assigned to pope Damasus. Her name is in the Carthag. Cal. of c. 450, Jan. 21 ; in Ruinart, p. 695. A church at Rome, in her honour, said to have been built under Constantine the Great, was repaired by Pope Honorius, a.d. 625-638, and another was built at Rome by Innocent X. (.\ssomani, .4ct. Mart. ii. 134, I55)- Sec also Act. SS. Jan. 21, on which in first appears. The confused accounts of them which Procoi>ius preserves exhibit the tribe and their prince as rude and ferocious barbarians, and Alboin was a fit leader of such a tribe (Paul. Diac. i. 27, ii. 28). That he was personally a Christian, though an Arian, is proved by a letter from a Gallic bishop to his first wife, a Gallic princess, which deplores, not his heathenism, but his heresy (Sirmond. Cone. Gall. i.). Succeed- ing his father, Alboin accomplished, by the aid of the Avars, the destruction of the Gepidae (see Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy followed. Alboin's invading army wms hetero- geneous. Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied by their families, who recrossed the Alps after the conquest, Muratori has deduced {Aniich. It. i. diss, i) from Italian topography the pre- sence of the Bavarians, and Paul. (ii. 26) adds distinctly the names of several other tribes. The number of the army is unknown, but was considerable, as it was a migration of the whole tribe, and it largely changed the character and arrangements of population in Italy. Alboin left Pannonia in April 568 ; the passes were unguarded, and he learnt from his own success the need of securing his rear and the frontier of his future kingdom, and entrusted the defence and government of \'enetia Prima, his first con- quest, to Gisulf his nephew, with the title of duke and the command of those whom he should himself select among the most eminent of the " Farae " or nobles (Paul. ii. ix.). From this point the conquest was rapid. In Liguria (the western half of north Italy), Genoa, with some cities of the Riviera, alone escaped. Pavia held out for three years : perhaps its siege was not very vigorously pressed, for we know that a great part of Alboin's force was de- tached in flying squadrons which ravaged the country southwards all through Tuscany and Aemilia, to so great a distance that Paul men- tions Rome and Ravenna as almost the only places which escaped. The death of Alboin followed the fall of Pavia. The story of his death is like that of his early hfe in the picture which it gives of a thoroughly barbaric society, where the skull of an enemy is used as a drinking-cup, and the men hold their banquets apart from the women (Gibbon, c. 45). Paul, avouches that the cup was to be seen in his own day. The chief authority for the life of Alboin, Paulus Diaconus. lived towards the 12 ALEXANDER end of the 8th cent., in the last days of the Lombard monarchy. [e.s.t.] Alexander, St., archbp. of Alexandria, ap- pears to have come to that see in 313, after the short episcopate of Achillas. He was an elderly man, of a kindly and attractive disposi- tion ; " gentle and quiet," as Rufinus says (i. i), but also capable of acting with vigour and persistency. Accusations were laid against him by the malcontent Meletian faction, " be- fore the emperor," Constantine (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. II ; ad Ep. Ae^. 23), but appar- ently without result. He was involved in a controversy with one Crescentius as to the proper time for keeping Easter (Epiph. Haer. 70, 9). But in 319 he was called upon to con- front a far more formidable adversary. [Arius.] Arius was the parish priest, as he may be de- scribed, of the church of BaukaUs, the oldest and the most important of the churches of Alexandria, situated " in the head of the mer- cantile part of the city " (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 116), a man whose personal abilities enhanced the influence of his official position ; he had been a possible successor at the last vacancy of the " Evangehcal Throne," and may have consequently entertained unfriendly feelings towards its actual occupant. But it would be unreasonable to ascribe his opinions to private resentment. Doubtless the habits of his mind (Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 11) prepared him to adopt and carry out to their consequences, with a peculiar boldness of logic, such views as he now began to disseminate in Alexandrian society: that the Son of God could not be co-eternal with His Father ; that He must be regarded as external to the Divine essence, and only a crea- ture. The bishop tried at first to check this heresy by remonstrance at an interview, but with no real success. Agitation increasing, Alexander summoned a conference of hisclergy; free discussion was allowed ; and, according to Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ulti- mately he asserted in strong terms the co- equality of the Son ; whereupon Arius criti- cized his language as savouring of the Sabellian error [Sabellius] which had " confounded the Persons." The movement increased, and Alexander himself was charged with irresolu- tion or even with some inclination towards the new errors. It was then, apparently, that CoUuthus, one of the city presbyters, went so far as to separate from his bishop's communion, and, on the plea of the necessities of the crisis, " ordained " some of his followers as clergy. (See Valesius on Theod. i. 4, and Neale, i. 116). Alexander's next step was to write to Arius and his supporters, including two bishops, five priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to re- nounce their " impiety " ; and the majority of the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis, at his request, subscribed his letter. The ex- hortation failing, the archbishop brought the case formally before the synod of his suffragans, who numbered nearly 100. The Arians were summoned to appear : they stated their opinions ; the Son, they held, was not eternal, but was created by the impersonal " Word," or Wisdom of the Father ; foreign, therefore, to the Father's essence, imperfectly cognizant of Him, and, in fact, called into existence to be His instrument in the creation of man. " And ALEXANDER can He then," asked one of the bishops, " change from good to evil, as Satan did ? " They did not shrink from answering, " Since He is a creature, such a change is not impos- sible " ; and the council instantly pronounced them to be " anathema." Such was the ex- comm)mication of Arius, apparently in 320. It was as far as possible from arresting the great movement of rationalistic thought (for this, in truth, was the character of Arianism) which had now so determinedly set in. The new opinions became extraordinarily popular ; Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial irreverence. But Arius ere long found that he could not maintain his position in the city when under the ban of the archbishop ; it may be that Alexander had power actually to banish him ; and he repaired to Palestine, where, as he expected, he found that his representations of the case made a favourable impression on several bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea. Some wrote in his favour to Alexander, who, on his part, was most indefatigable in writing to various bishops in order to prevent them from being deceived by Arius ; Epiphanius tells us that seventy such letters were preserved in his time {Haer. 69. 4). Of these, some were suffi- ciently effectual in Palestine to constrain Arius to seek an abode at Nicomedia. He had se- cured the support of the bishop of the city, the able but unprincipled Eusebius (Theod. i. 5 ; Athan. de Syn. 17) ; and he now wrote (Athan. de Syn. 16) in the name of " the presbyters and deacons" who had been excommunicated, to Alexander, giving a statement of their views, and professing that they had been learned from Alexander himself ; the fact being, probably, as Mohler thinks, that Alexander had formerly used vague language in an anti-Sabellian direction. Eusebius now repeatedly urged Alexander to readmit Arius to communion ; and the other bishops of Bithynia, in synod (Soz. i. 15), authorized their chief to send cir- cular letters in his favour to various prelates. A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Anazarbus, wrote to Alexander, openly declaring that Christ was " one of the hundred sheep " ; George, an Alexandrian presbyter, then stay- ing at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his bishop to the effect that the Son once " was not," just as Isaiah " was not," before he was born to Amoz (Athan. de Syn. 17), for which he was deposed by Alexander from the priest- hood. Arius now returned into Palestine, and three bishops of that country, one of whom was Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to hold religious assemblies within their dioceses. This permission naturally gave great offence to Alexander. He had hitherto written only to individual bishops, but he now * drew up (per- haps with the help of his secretary and " arch- deacon," Athanasius) his famous encyclic to all his fellow-ministers, i.e. to the whole Chris- tian episcopate, giving an account of the opinions for which the Egyptian synod had ex- communicated the original Arians, adducing Scriptural texts in refutation, and warning his brethren against the intrigues of Eusebius (Socr. i. 6). This letter, which he caused his • A comparatively late date for this encyclic ap- pears necessary, on account of its allusions to Euse- bius. {See'Sea\e, Hist. Alex. i. i2y.) Some identify the encvclic with the Tome. ALEXANDER rlergy to sign, probably preceiled the " Tome " or confession of faith which lie referred to as having been signed by some bishops, when he wrote to Alexander. b|>. of Byzantinm, the long and elabor.iti- Icttir preserved by Theod. i. 4 ; in which, while using some language which in strictness must be called inaccurate, he gives an exposition of texts which became watchwords of the orthodox in the struggle (A.D. 323). Another correspondent now appears on the scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a strong influence over the emperor Constantine, persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which the controversy was treated as a logomachy (Eus. Vil. Con. ii. 64 seq. ; Socr. i. 7). The im- perial epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very high position. Hosius of Cordova, who can have had but little sympathy with the tone assumed by the Emperor. Thee ouncilhcUl at Alexandria on his arrival decided onv point very unc(]ui vo- cally : the ordinations performed by Collutlnis were pronounced absolutely null (Athan. Apul. 76). Peace was impossible on the basis of in- differentism, and Constantine summoned a gen- eral assemblv of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in June 325. [D. C. A., art. Nicaea, Council of.] The Arians were condemned, and the Nicene Creed, in its original form, was drawn up. The story told by Epiphanius, of severities used by Alexander towards the Meletians [Meletius], and of a consequent petition ad- dressed by them to Constantine, appears to be one of several misstatements which he adopted from some Meletian sources. Athanasius tells us expressly that Alexander died within five months after the reception of the Meletians into church communion in the council of Nicaea (Apol. c. Ari. 59), and this, if strictly reckoned from the close of the council, would place his death in Jan. 326. It cannot be dated later than April 18 in that year. See further, Athanasius. Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alex- ander's local administration which furnished a precedent, on one occasion, f<.)r himself. Alex- ander was building the church of St. Theonas at Alexandria, on a larger scale than any of the existing churches, and used it, for convenience' sake, before it was completed (Ap. ad Const. 15). He is also said by tradition to have never read the Gospels in a sitting posture, and to have never eaten on fast days while the sun was in the sky (BoUand. Act. SS., Feb. 26). Two short fragments of a letter addressed by him to a bishop named Aeglon, against the Arians, are quoted in the works of Maximus the Confessor (in the Monothelite controversy), vol. ii. p. 132. A trans, of his extant writings isin the Ante-Xicene Lib. (T. &T. Clark), [w.b.] Alexander, St., bp. of Byzantium, as the city was then called (Theod. Hist. i. 19) for about 23 years, his consecration being vari- ously dated from a.d. 313 to 317. He was al- ready 73 years old at the time (Socr. Hist. ii. 6 ; Soz. Hist. iii. 3). He is highly praised by Gregory of Nazianzurn {Or. 27), and by Epi- phanius {adv. Haer. Ixix. 10). Theodoret calls him an "apostolic" bishop {Hist. i. 3, cf Phil. 12). In the commencement of the Arian troubles the co-operation of Alexander was specially requested by his namesake of Alex- ALEXANDER 13 andria (Theod. i. 4) ; and he was present at the council of Nicaea (Soz. ii. 29). When Constantine, induced by the Eusebians (Athan. Kp. ad Si-rap.; Kutiniis, Hist, i.), and deceiv('d by the equivocations of Arius (Socr. i. 37), commanded that Arins should be received to communion, Alexander, though threatened by the Eusebians with deposition and banish- ment, persisted in his refusal to admit the archheretic to communion, and shut himself up in the church of Irene for prayer in this extremity. Alexander did not long survive Arius (Socr. ii. 6 ; Theod. i. 19). On his death- bed he is said to have designated Paulus as his successor, and warned his clergy against the S]>eciousness of Macedonius. [i.o.s.] Alexander, bp. of Hierapolis Euphratensis and metropolitan in the patriarchate of Anti- och ; the uncompromising opponent of Cyril of .Mexaiuiria, and the resolute advocate of Ncstorius in the controversies that followed the council of h:phesus, a.d. 431. His dignity as metropolitan gave him a leading place in the opposition of which the patriarch John of An- tioch was the head, and his influence was con- firmed by personal character. He may have commenced his episcopate as early as a.d. 404, when with uncompromising zeal he erased from the diptychs of one of his churches the name of J ulian, a man famous for sanctity, but accused of Apollinarianism (Baluz. Nov. Coll. Cone. p. 867). Alexander arrived at the council of Ephesus in company with his brother metropolitan Alexander of .'Vpameaon or about June 20, 431. ,\s soon as the Alexanders discovered Cyril's intention to open the council before John of Antioch's arrival they, on June 21, united with the other bishops of the East in signing a formal act demanding delay (Labbe, Concil. iii. 552, 660, 662 ; Baluz. 697, 699). The council heeded them not, opened their sittings the next day, June 22, and soon did the work for which they had been summoned, the condem- nation of Nestorius. When John at last arrived, June 27, Alexander joined in the counter-council held by him and the prelates of his party in his inn, and signed the acts which cancelled the proceedings of the former council, deposing Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and declaring Cyril's anathemas here- tical. As a necessary consequence Alexander was included in the sentence against John, and cut off from communion with Cyril's party (Labbe, iii. 764 ; Baluz. 507). Later he joined the council held by John at Tarsus, which pro- nounced a fresh sentence of deposition on Cyril (Baluz. 840, 843, 874) ; also that at An- tioch in the middle of December, ratifying the former acts and declaring adherence to the Nicene faith. A meeting was held at Antioch early in 432, attended by Alexander, when six alternative articles were drawn up, one of which it was hoped Cyril would accept, and so afford a basis of reconciliation {ib. 764). One de- clared a resolution to be content with the Nicene Creed and to reject all the documents that had caused the controversy. Another council was summoned at Beroea. Four more articles were added to the six, and the whole were despatched to Cyril. Cyril was well con- tent to express his adherence to the Nicene I Creed, but felt it unreasonable that he should 14 ALEXANDER be required to abandon all he had written on the Nestorian controversy ( Labbe, iii. 114,1151, 1 157, iv. 666 ; Baluz. 786). Cyril's reply was accepted by Acacius and John of Antioch, and other bishops now sincerely anxious for peace, but not by Alexander or Theodoret (Baluz. 757, 782). The former renewed his charge of ApoUinarianism and refused to sign the deposition of Nestorius {ib. 762-763). This defection of Acacius of Beroea and John of Antioch was received with indignant sorrow by Alexander. It was the first breach in the hitherto compact opposition, and led to its gradual dissolution, leaving Alexander almost without supporters. In a vehement letter to Andrew of Samosata, he bitterly complained of Acacius's fickleness and protested that he would rather fly to the desert, resign his bishopric, and cut off his right hand than recog- nize Cyril as a Catholic until he had recanted his errors {ib. 764-763). The month of April, 433, saw the reconciliation of John and the majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril fully established (Labbe, iv. 659 ; Cyril, Ep. 31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed of this in a private letter from John, beseeching him no longer to hinder the peace of the church. Alexander's indignation now knew no bounds. He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and Theodoret (Baluz. 799, 800). His language became more and more extravagant, " exile, violent death, the beasts, the fire, the preci- pice, were to be chosen before communion with a heretic " (ib. 768, 775, 799, 800, 809, 810), and he even "made a vow to avoid the sight, hearing, or even the remembrance of all who in their hearts turned back again to Egypt" {ib. 865). Alexander's contumacy had been regarded as depriving him of his func- tions as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, stepped in, a.d. 434, and ordained bishops in the Euphratensian province. This act, of very doubtful legality, excited serious displeasure, and was appealed against by Alexander and six of his suffragans (ib. 831-833, 865) The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria and Theodosius had been carefully informed of the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few left to support him to communicate with those whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the church. John had obtained imperial rescripts decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all bishops who still refused to communicate with him {ib. 876). This rescript was executed in the case of other recusants ; Alexander still remained. John expressed great unwilling- ness to take any steps towards the deprivation of his former friend. He commissioned Theo- doret to use his influence with him. But Theo- doret had again to report the impossibility of softening his inflexibility. John now, a.d. 435, felt he could not offer any further resist- ance to the imperial decrees. But no compul- sion was needed : Alexander obeyed the order with calmness, and even with joy at laying aside the burdens and anxieties of the episco- pate. He went forth in utter poverty, not taking with him a single penny of his episcopal revenue, or a book or paper belonging to the church. His sole outfit consisted of some neces- sary documents, and the funds contributed by friends for the hire of vehicles (ib. 868, 881, 882). The banishment of their beloved and AL06IANS revered bishop overwhelmed the people of Hierapolis with grief. Fear of the civil au- thorities deterred them from any open mani- festation, but they closed the churches, shut themselves up in their houses, and wept in pri- vate. In exile at the mines of Phamuthin in Egypt, Alexander died, sternly adhering to his anathemas of Cyril to the last (Tillemont, Mem. Eccli's. xiv. XV. ; Labbe, Concil. vol. iii. ; Baluz. Nov. Collect.) [e-v.] Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, was an early friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alex- andria, where they studied together under Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Ens. H. E. vi. 14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia {ib. vi. 11) ; or, according to Valesius {Not. ad Euseb.) and Tillemont {Mem. eccl. iii. p. 183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a confessor in the persecution of Severus, a.d. 204, and was thrown into prison, where he con- tinued some years. He was still a prisoner at the commencement of Caracalla's reign, a.d. 211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Cle- mens to congratulate the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop in the room of Serapion (Ens. vi. 11). The next year he was released from prison, and, in fulfil- ment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. This being the first occasion of the translation of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation of the canons of the church, it was deemed essential to obtain the sanction of the whole episcopate of Palestine. A synod was sum- moned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bish- ops gave their unanimous consent to the step, A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. ; Vales. Not. in Euseb. vi. 1 1 ; Socr. vii. 36 ; Bingham, Ori- gines, bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which he supported Origen against his bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. [Origen.] The friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm and lasting ; and the latter bears testimony to the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of character manifested in all Alexander's public instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. i). Alexander was again thrown into prison at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where he died a.d. 251 (Eus. H. E. vi. 46 ; Hieron. Script. Eccl.). Eusebius has preserved some fragments of Alexander's letters : to the An- tinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, ib. ; to Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, H. E. vi. 19. These have been pubUshed by Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. pp. 201 seq. Clemens Alex, dedicated his Canon Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13). [e.v.] Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all the authorities to have been the successor of Evaristus. Eusebius {H. E. iv. 4) makes him succeed in a.d. 109, in his Chronicle, a.d. hi (f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign of ten years. He has been confused with a martyr of the same name, who is mentioned in a fragment of an inscription. [g.h.m.] Alogians, or Alogi (from d privative and Ao'705, deniers of the Logos, or at least of the strongest witness for the Logos ; not from dXoyoi, unreasonable), a heretical sect of dis- AMBROSlAStEli puted existence in the latter half of 2nd cent. (c. 170). Epiphaiiius invented the term (Haeres. 1. i, adv. Al. c. 3), to characterize their rejection of the Divine Word preached by John (fVft ovv t6i> AtJ^OJ- ov d^xoi-rai tov wapa 'luidwov KfKr)pi'yiJ.evov, 'Woyoi \-\7j<>i/(roi'rat). He traces their origin to Theodotus of Byzan- tium (Hiur. liv. c. i). According to his re- presentation they denied, in ardent opposition to the Gnosticism of Cerinthus on the one hand, and to the Montanists on the other, that Jesus Christ was the eternal Logos, as taught in John i. 1-14 ; and rejected the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse as productions of Cerinthus.* Heiaichen supposes that the Alogi rejected only the Apocalypse and not the Fourth Gospel; but this is directly con- I tradicted by Hpiphanius (1. c. 3 ; cf. Haer. 1. iv. i). That they attributed these books to Cerinthus, the Docetist and enemy of St. J ohn, shows their utter want of critical judfiment. They tried to refute the Gospel of St. John by the Synoptic Gospels, but with very poor arguments. In oppcisition to the Montanists, ; thev also denied the continuance of the spiritual gifts in the church. It is not clear from Epiphanius whether the Alogi rejected only St. John's doctrines of the Logos, or also the divinity of Christ in any form. He calls ; them in his violent way (1. c. 3) aWorpioi ■KavTairaaiv rod KJjpvyfi.aTOi tj}s a\i}6ela^ : and says of their heresy {Haer. liv. c. i) that it denied the Gospel of St. John and the God- < Word taught therein {rbv ev avn^ iv apxn 6vTa ■ debv Xdyov). Yet he clearly distinguishes them from the Ebionites ; and their opposition to Cerinthus implies that they believed in the real humanity of Christ. Dorner {Hist, of Christology, i. p. 503, German ed.l thinks it I probable that they allowed no distinctions in i the Godhead, and thought that the divinity I of the Father dwelt in the man Jesus. But this would identify them with the Patripas- sians. Lardner {Works, iv. 190, viii. 627) ■ doubts the existence of this sect, because of ' the absence of other data, and the tendency of , Epiphanius to multiply and exaggerate here- 1 sies. But the testimony of Epiphanius is I essentially sustained by Irenaeus, who men- j tions persons who rejected both the Gospel 1 of St. John and the prophetic Spirit {simul et I evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum : j adv. Haer. iii. c. 11, § 9). Epiphanius, Haer. 50, and esp. 54 ; M. Merkel, Historisch-kritische Aufkldrung der I Streitigkeit der Aloger iiber die Apokalypsis '■ ( Frank f. and Leipz. 1782); F. A. Heinichen, j de Alogis, Theodotianis atque Arlemonilis (Leipz. 1829); Neander, Kirchengesch. i. ii. pp. 906, 1003 ; Dorner, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 500- 503; Harnack, Literatur, ii. i ; Zahn, Neutest. Kanon. i. 220, ii. 967. [v.s.] Ambrosiaster, or Pseudo-Ambrosliis, a name generally employed to denote the un- Imown author of the Commentaria in xiii • This, it may be remarked, is an argument against the criticism of the Tubingen school, which would bring the composition of the Gospel of .St. John down to the middle of the 2nd cent. ; for Cerinthus %vas a contemporary of the apostle. Had the Alogi had any idea of the recent origin of St. John, they would have made much account of it. AMBROSIASTER 15 Episiolas beati Paiili, f>irnurlv ascribed to St. .•\mbrose and usually printed along with his works. The commentary itself contains no definite indication of its authorship. An in- cidental remark, however, on i Tim. iii. 15, " Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Dania- sus," shows that it was written during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384). It has been suggested that this clause may be an interpolation ; but such an interpolation seems dillicult to account for. Other marks, negative and positive, \wi\\\. to the same period. The text used is not the Vulgate, but a prior form of the Latin version. The ecclesiastical authors to whom he refers — Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus — belong to an earlier date. Among the heresies which he mentions he applies himself more especially to those of the 4th cent. — e.g. those of Arius, Novatian, I'hotinus — while the absence of allusion to later forms of error points the same way. He speaks of the Marcionites as on the verge of extinction (" quamvis pene defecer- int," in Ep. ad Timoth. I. iv. i). The date thus indicated would be the latter half of the 4th cent. ; although, in that case, it is certainly somewhat surprising that Jerome in his treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis should not mention any other Latin comment- ator on the Pauline Epistles than Victorinus. It was the generally received opinion in the Middle Ages that our author was Ambrose, bp. of Milan ; but this belief, which Erasmus was among the first to question, is now universally admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, though opinions differ much as to the probable author. From certain expressions which ap- pear favourable to Pelagianism the work has been assigned by some to J ulian of Aeclanum ; but, as Richard Simon has naively remarked, " if the writer does not always appear ortho- dox to those who profess to follow the doctrine of St. Augustine, it must be taken into account that he wrote before that Father had pub- lished his opinions." The expressions in question were probably employed without re- ference to the Pelagian controversy, and previous to its emergence, and are, moreover, accompanied by others entirely incompatible with a Pelagian authorship {e.g. the statement in Ep. ad Rom. v. 12, " Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa "). The only positive statement as to the authoiship is contained in the following pas- sage of Augustine, Contra duas Episiolas Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7 : " Nam et sic sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, in quo omnes peccaverunt : ait enim, ' In quo, id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Delude addidit : ' Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa ; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo in- telligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt." As the words cited are found in this com- mentary, it may be reasonably assumed that the statement applies to it, and that Augustine reckoned Hilarius its author. Of the persons of that name, Augustine elsewhere mentions only Hilarius the Sardinian, deacon of the Roman church, sent by pope Liberius in 354 to the emperor Constantius after the synod 16 AMBROSim of Aries. By many modern scholars Hilary the deacon has been accepted as the author of the work. But Petavius and others have objected that Augustine was not likely to apply the epithet sancttis to one whom he must have known to be guilty of schism. There can be little doubt that, whoever was the author, the work no longer retains its original form. The well-meaning zeal of copvists appears to have freely inserted com- ments from various sources, such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, the commentary which is printed at the end of the works of Jerome and is usually ascribed to Pelagius. These circumstances sufficiently account for the various forms of the text in MSS., and for the discrepancies and inequalities of treatment in several parts. There is, moreover, a marked attinity be- tween this commentarv and certain portions of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti usually printed with the works of St. Augus- tine. The similarity of ideas and, in various cases, identity of language can only be explained by supposing either that they have had a common author, or that the writer of the one work has borrowed largely from the other. The note of time in the Quaestiones — 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem— and some references to contemporary events suit the period of Damasus, and have induced many to ascribe this work also to Hilary the deacon. But the authorship of both remains uncertain, and probably the Quaestiones was composed subsequently to the commentary. The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, notwithstanding its inequalities of treatment, is of great value, and is well characterized by Sixtus Senensis as " brief in words, but weighty in matter " ; and, although the writer is frequently controversial, he speedily returns to the proper work of exegesis. In conse- quence of his use of the old Latin version and frequent reference to various readings, his work affords important materials for textual criticism. The commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which accompanies the others in some editions, but is omitted by the Benedic- tine editors, is a compilation from various Patristic sources, principally from Chrysostom. Cf. H. B. Swete, Theod. Mops. Comm. (1880), vol. i. p. Ixxviii., vol. ii. p. 351. The commentary was issued separately at Cologne in 1530 and 1532. Cf. A Study of A mbrosiaster bv A. Souter (Camb. Univ. Press) ; Text and Studies, vol. vii. No. 4. [w.p.d.] AmbrosiUS (1) {'Afx^poaios) of Alexandria, a deacon according to Jerome {de Vir. III. 56), the disciple and friend of Origen, died c. 250. It is not certain whether Ambrose was a Christian by birth ; but he was of a noble and wealthv family (Orig. Exhort, ad. Mart. 14 f. 49 ; Hieron. I.e.), and probably occupied some office under the Imperial Government (Epiph. Haer. 64, 3: cf. Orig. tb. c. 36). Endowed with an active and critical mind, he at first neglected the simple teaching of the Gospel for the more philosophic systems of heresy (Orig. in Johann. torn. v.). Hov/ever, when he met Origen he recognized his true teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith (Epiph. I.e.). From that time to his death AMBROSIUS Ambrose devoted his whole energy to en- couraging his great master in his labours on Holy Scripture, and used his fortune to further them (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). M Ambrose left no writings of his own except some letters, but it is evident that he exer- cised a powerful influence upon Origen, who called him his " taskmaster," epyodiwKTTjs {in Johann. tom. v.), and it may have been through his zeal in "collation" (Orig. Ep. 1.) that Origen undertook his critical labours. Through mistaken devotion, Ambrose indiscreetly per- mitted the publication of some unrevised treatises of Origen which were intended only for his own use (Hieron. Ep. 84, 10). [b.f.w.] AmbrosiUS (2), " a chief man of Greece," and a " senator," " who became a Christian," and, according to the title of the Syriac trans- lation, wrote the "Address to the Greeks" (.V670S Trpbs"E\\rivas), which is published with the works of Justin Martyr (Cureton, Spicil. Syr. pp. xi. 61). There is no other trace of this tradition, nor ground for identifying him with Ambrose of Alexandria. [b.f.w.] AmbrosiUS, St., bp. of Milan (a.d. 374-397). The chief materials for his Ufe are his own works, which include an important collection of letters. Another source is a Life by Paulinus, his notarius or secretary, who had been with him at his death and \vrote at the suggestion of St. Augustine. This Life is full of prodigies, and adds hardly anything to what we learn from the works. The letters have been reduced to a chronological order with great care by the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose, who have also digested the various particulars into a useful biography. Ambrose's father, who bore the same name, was a Roman of the highest rank, and at the time of St. Ambrose's birth was prefect of the Galliae, a province which included Britain and Spain, and constituted one of the four great praetorian prefectures of the empire. The onlv datum for determining the year of Ambrose's birth is a passage in one of his letters in which he happens to mention that he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time contrasts the quiet of Campania with the com- motions by which he was himself surrounded (Ep. hx. 3). There are two periods to which this description would apply, a.d. 387 or 393. If we assume, as seems most probable, that Ambrose was fifty-three years old in 393, we shall place his birth in 340. After receiving a liberal education at Rome, Ambrose devoted himself to the profession of the law, which was then the usual path to the highest civil offices (see Gibbon, c. xvii.). He practised at the court of the praetorian prefect of Italv, Probus, who appointed him " con- sular" * magistrate of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia. He made an admirable magistrate, and became known to the people of Milan, where he held his court, as a high- minded, conscientious, and religious man. Whilst he was discharging his office, Auxen- tius, whom the Arian partv had foisted into the see of Milan, died. The Catholic partv had now grown stronger, and a vehement strife » The empire was divided into 116 provinces, of which 3 were governed by pro-consuls, 37 by consulars, 5 by correctors, and 71 by president (Gibbon, U.S.). AMBROSIOS arose as to the appointment of a successor i to Auxentius. The consular came down to j the church to keep the peace and was ad- i dressing tlie people in his character as a civil ; magistrate, when a cry (which tradition I asserts to have been that of a child) was , heard, " Ambrose for bishop ! " In a moment it struck the whole multitude as a solution in which both parties might acquiesce without the sense of defeat, and a unanimous shout i arose, " We will have Ambrose for bishop ! " : It was a singular choice, even for those rougher and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was not yet so much as baptized. But he was an earnest Christian in his belief, and had only been kept from seeking baptism by a religious awe, of which there were then many examples. Such an one naturally shrank from being made bishop. With undoubted sincerity, he resisted this popular nomination. He was, he savs, raplus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium de Officiis, i. 4). He was baptized, passed summarily through the intermediate eccle- siastical stages, and on the eighth day was consecrated bp. of Milan. This was in the year 374 (a year after the death of Athan- asius, and before the death of Valentinian I.), Ambrose being thirty-four years of age. The vox populi was never more thoroughly justified. The foundation of his excellence was laid in a singular and unsullied purity of character. In the see of Milan Ambrose had found precisely his place, and he laboured I indefatigably as its bishop for twenty-three : years till his death. I One of his first cares after his ordination was . to divest himself of the charge of private j property. As a member of a wealthy family ! he appears to have possessed both money and 1 lands. What he did not give away to the poor ' or the church or reserve as an income for his I sister, he placed entirely under the manage- I ment of a dearly loved brother named Satyrus. I He was thus free to devote his whole energies ' to the work of his calling. His writings ' enable us to follow him in both his ordinary and his extraordinary occupations. He was wont to '• celebrate the sacrifice" every day (Ep. XX. 15). Every Lord's Day he preached in the Basilica. His extant works consist mainly of addresses and expositions which had ; been first spoken in the church and were after- wards revised for publication. They bear traces of this mode of composition in their simplicity and naturalness, and also in their popular character and undigested form. Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuously de- clares, to learn and to teach at the same time (de Officiis, lib. i. cap. i. 4). In doctrine he followed reverently what was of best repute in the church in his time, carefully guarding his own and his people's orthodoxy from all heresy, and urging, but with wholesome, if not always consistent, qualifications, the ascetic religious perfection which the best Christians were then pursuing. The sacred books, for which he had a profound reverence, were to him — what pastoral and didactic theology has always tended to make them — verbal mater- ials fur edification, which was to be extracted from them by any and every kind of inter- pretation to which their letter could be subjected. His writings, therefore, or ser- AMBROSIUS 17 j mons, are chiefly of interest with reference to the history and character of tiicir author ; but I they are lively and ingenuous, full of good practical advice, and interspersed with gnomic I sentences of much felicity. One of the secrets of Ambrose's influence I over the people was his admission of them into all his interests and cares. He had nothing private from the congregation in the Basilica. The sister Marcellina and the brothers Satyrus and Ambrose (this was the order of their ages) were united together by a remarkable affec- tion. The three loved one another too de- votedly to think of marrying. Marcellina became early a consecrated virgin, but con- tinued to feel the keenest and tenderest concern in her brothers' lives. When Ambrose became a bishop, Satyrus appears to have given up an important appointment in order to come and live with his brother and take every secular care off his hands. These domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we learn from sermons of Ambrose. His dis- courses on virginity became famous, and attracted virgins from distant parts to receive I consecration at his hands. These discourses, in the third year after his ordination, he [ digested into three books, de Virginibus, \ which were addressed in their new form to his \ sister, and which contain, besides much praise 1 of Marcellina, the address made to her at her '. consecration by the bp. of Rome. A year or two later occurred the death of Satyrus, in the flower of his age. In the depth of his grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse upon his brother {de Exccssu Salyri), which was followed seven days after by a sermon ' upon the hope of a future life (de Fide Res.). The bp. of Milan, exercising the authority of a patriarchate, and presiding over a city which j was frequently the residence of the emperor, j was a great dignitary. But we cannot fail to recognize the high reputation which Ambrose had won for himself personally and in a sur- prisingly short period, when we observe the deference paid to him by the emperors of his time. He was certainly fortunate in the sovereigns with whom he had to do. The youths Gratian and Valentinian II., and the great Theodosius, were singularly virtuous and religious princes. Gratian was a boy of six- teen when the death of his father placed him I on the throne, and in the year 377, the third of Ambrose's episcopate, he was two years older. In that year he was preparing to go ! to the assistance of his uncle Valens against the barbarian invaders by whom he was hard pressed ; and desiring to be fortified against the arguments of the Arians whom Valens was favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to Ambrose, and asked him to furnish him with a controversial treatise in support of the ortho- dox faith. Ambrose complied with the pious youth's request by writing two books de Fide. ' In the following year Gratian wrote a letter, preserved with those of Ambrose, in which he requests another copy of that work, together with an additional argument upon the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In this letter he calls Ambrose parens. Ambrose amplified his ! former treatise by adding three books to the j two he had already composed. This work de I Fide was reckoned an important defence of the 2 18 AMBROSIUS orthodox faith. The work de Spiritu Sancto, in three books, was written in the year 381. The successes of the Goths which attended the defeat and death of Valens were the occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an immense number of captives were carried off by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the whole available resources of the church were exhausted by Ambrose ; and when everything else had been taken, he did not scruple to break up and sell the sacramental vessels. He himself relates this fact with pride (de Off. lib. ii. 136, 138). We now see Ambrose zealous in the general affairs of the church, and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. Pre- siding in the council of Aquileia, 381, he questioned the two Arianizing prelates who were put on their trial before it. Several letters addressed to the emperor at this time in the name of the council of Aquileia or of the Italian episcopate on the general government of the church are preserved amongst Am- brose's letters {Epp. ix.-xii.). When Acholius died— the bp. of Thessalonica by whom Theo- dosius had been baptized— his death was formally announced to Ambrose by the clergy and people of his diocese ; and we have two letters in reply, one written to the church and the other to Anysius the new bishop. The next two letters of the collection (xvii., xviii.) are addressed to the emperor Valen- tinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort him not to comply with a request of Symma- chus, prefect of the city, that he would replace the altar of Victory in the Senate House, and restore the funds for certain heathen cere- monies. Ambrose, whose influence was in- voked by the bp. of Rome, protested strongly against any such concessions to paganism ; and Victory, as it was said, favoured in the result her enemy more than her champion. The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, the mother of Valentinian II., which after- wards reached such a height at Milan, had been begun with a preliminary trial of strength about the appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. But when the usurpation of Maximus occurred (a.d. 383), and had been stained by the violent death of Gratian, Justina in her alarm had recourse to the great Cathohc bishop, and persuaded him to go on an embassy to Max- imus, to beg him to leave Italy untouched. Maximus had Theodosius to deal with behind the boy-emperor and his mother ; and his first act, when Gaul had fallen into his hands, was to send to Theodosius and propose to him, instead of war, the partition of the empire. Theodosius was constrained by motives of pohcy to assent to the proposal ; and Ambrose had the comfort of returning to Milan with the announcement that the new emperor would refrain from passing the boundary of the Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy in a letter of Ambrose {Ep. xxiv. 7) in which he reports the less successful issue of a later appeal to Maximus. One of the chief glories of Ambrose is that St. Augustine ascribed to him his conver- sion, and sought Christian baptism at his hands. The circumstances of his intercourse with St. Ambrose (a.d. 383-387) are related by St. Augustine in his Confessions. He AMBROSIUS tells us of the singularly eminent position of St. Ambrose (vi. 3), of his reputation for eloquence (vi. 13), of the difficulty of getting an opportunity of conversing with him on account of his many engagements, and his habit of reading to himself when company vyas present (v. 3), and of his method of expounding the Old Testament by finding under the letter a spiritual or mystical sense (vi. 4). It was during this period, in the years 385-6, that Ambrose defended the churches of Milan so stoutly against the intrusion of Arian wor- ship. Justina, who patronized the languishing Arian party, was bent on obtaining one of the churches at Milan for the use of her friends. Ambrose was not likely to make the con- cession. How in this matter he resisted the violent efforts of Justina, and the authority of her son (at this time fifteen years of age), is described at length by Ambrose himself in letters to his sister Marcellina and to Valen- tinian, and in a sermon preached at the crisis of the struggle {Epp. xx. xxi., and the Sermo de Basilicis Tradendis which follows them). There appear to have been two churches at Milan, the one without, the other within, the walls. The former, as of less importance, was first asked for. This being refused, some persons of the court came to Ambrose, and begged him to concede — probably for partial use only — the newer and larger basilica, and to exert his influence to prevent any popular disturbance. For it is important to observe that throughout the struggle the people were on the Catholic side. Ambrose replied loftily that the temple of God could not be sur- rendered by His priest. The next day, which was Sunday, as Ambrose was officiating in the principal basilica, news came that poUce- agents had been sent from the palace, who were hanging on the Portian basiUca the cur- tains which marked a building as claimed for the imperial treasury. A part of the multitude hastened thither ; Ambrose remained to per- form Mass. Then he heard that the people had seized on a certain Arian presbyter, whom they met on the way. Ambrose began to pray with bitter tears that the cause of the church might not be stained with blood ; and sent presbyters and deacons, who succeeded in rescuing the prisoner unhurt. Justina, in her irritation, treated the rich men of the city as responsible for a tiunult, and threw many of them into prison. The imperial authority was being dangerously strained. PoUtic offi- cials came to Ambrose and entreated him to give way to the sovereign rights of the em- peror ; Ambrose rephed that the emperor had no rights over what belonged to God. A body of troops was sent to take possession of the basilica, and there was great fear of blood being shed ; but after mutual appeals between their officers and Ambrose, the soldiers with- drew, and Ambrose remained all day in the chinrch. At night he went home, and on coming out the next morning he found that the church (the Portian) was surrounded by soldiers. But the soldiers were in awe of Ambrose, and, learning that he had threatened them with excommunication, they began to crowd in, protesting that they came to pray and not to fight. Ambrose took the lesson for the day as the subject of a sermon, and AMBROSIUS whilst he was preaching he was told that the imperial curtains were taken down. The (emperor was worsted by the bishop, and was « naturally angry. He sent a secretary to reproach .\mbrose, and ask if he meant to make himself a tyrant. Soldiers continued to surround the church, and .\inbrose remained there singing psalms with the faithful. The next day the soldiers were withdrawn, and the merchants who had been imprisoned were released. The struggle was over ; but Ambrose heard that the emperor had said bitterly to the soldiers, " If .\mbrose orders \ 11, you will give me up in chains." He rt cords another saying, which drew from him a retort of characteristic felicity. The court chamberlain sent him a message : " Whilst I am aUve, shall you despise Valentinian ? 1 will take off your head." Ambrose answered : •• May God grant you to fulfil what you threaten ; for then my fate will be that of a bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch." In the course of the following year the attempts of the .\riaii party, and of the em- peror as at this time governed by that party, ' were renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold a discussion with Auxentius, an Arian bishop, before chosen judges in the presence of the court, or else to withdraw from Milan. He I consulted such bishops and presbyters as were ; within reach, and in their name uTote a letter : to the emperor {Ep. xxi.), declining the dis- I cussion. An alarm was spread amongst the I people that he was going to be taken away I from Milan, and for some days, by night and I by day, he was surrounded and watched by j an immense concourse of his friends. He I preached them a sermon (de Basilicis Traden- dis), assuring them of his steadfastness, and I encouraging them to confidence, and at the ! same time gave them hymns composed by ' himself to sing — hymns in honour of the Trinity — by which their fervour was greatly stimulated. Again the court party found themselves worsted, and gave way. The singing of hymns, by which this re- markable occupation of the basilica was char- acterized, is described by St. Augustine as extremely moving (Conf. vi. 7), and is said by him to have been an imitation of Eastern customs, and to have been followed generally I throughout the church. PauUnus also ob- ' serves that at this time " antiphons, hymns, ' and vigils began to be performed in the I church of Milan, and had spread thence I amongst all the churches of the West " {Vita, 1 13). The reputation of St. Ambrose as a I composer of hymns was such that many cer- I tainly not his have been attributed to him, I and amongst them the Te Deum. The Bene- i dictine edition gives twelve hymns, which ] there is some good authority for ascribing to I Ambrose, the best known of which are those I beginning Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator I omnium. Veni redemptor gentium, and lux I beata Trinitas. They have a brightness and : felicity which have reasonably made them j favourites in the church to the present day. I We must take into account the state of j mind brought about in the bishop and his I flock by that protracted vigil in the basilica, I when we read of the miracles into which their triumph over heresy blazed forth. We have AMBROSIUS 10 a narrative from St. Ambrose's own pen, in a letter to Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), of the wonder- ful disco\ery of the remains of two niartyrs, and of the cures wrought by them. \ basilica was to be dedicated, and Ambrose was longing to find some relics of martyrs. \ presage suddenly struck him. (This " presagium " is called a vision by St. .Augustine, Conf. Ix. 7, de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.) He caused the ground to be opened in the church that was ronse- crated by the remains of St. Felix and St. Nabor. Two bodies were found, of wonderful size (ut prisca uetas ferebal), the heads severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained with blood. This discovery, so precious to a church " barren of martyrs," was welcomed with the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began to remember that they had heard formerly the names of these martyrs — Gervasius and Pro- tasius — and had read the title on their grave. Miracles crowded thick upon one another. They were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of sickly persons ; but one blind man received his sight. Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly and positively affirms the roaUty of the cure ; and Augustine, who generally held that the age of miracles was past, also bears witness to the common acceptance of the fact at Milan. Gibbon has some excuse for his note, " I should recommend this miracle to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well as the Nicene Creed." The Arians, as we learn from Ambrose and Pauhnub, made light of the healing of demoniacs, and were sceptical about the blind man's history. The martyrs' bones were carried into the " Ambrosian " Basilica (now the church of St. Ambrogio), and deposited beneath the altar in a place which Ambrose had designed for his own remains. The memory of this conflict did not restrain Justina and her son from asking help shortly after of Ambrose. It was evident that Maximus was preparing to invade Italy ; and as Ambrose had apparently been successful in his former embassy, he was charged with another conciliatory appeal to the same ruler. The magnanimous bishop consented to go, but he was unfavourably received, and having given great offence by abstaining from com- munion with the bishops who were about Maximus, he was summarily ordered to return home. He reports the failure of his mission in a letter to Valentinian {Ep. xxiv.). It is worthy of remark that the punishment of heresy by death was so hateful to .\mbrose that he declined communion with bishops who had been accompUces in it ("qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant," ib. 12). These bishops had prevailed on Maximus to put to death Priscillian — the first time that heresy was so punished. [Priscillianus.] Maximus was not diverted from his project. He crossed the Alps, and justina, with her son, fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the vigour and ability of Theodosius triumphed over Maximus, who perished in the conflict he had provoked. Ambrose, who withdrew from Milan when Maximus came to occupy it, appears to have been near Theodosius in the j hour of victory, and used his influence with him in favour of moderation and clemency, j which the emperor, according to his usual ; habit, displayed in an eminent degree {Ep. xl. 20 AMBROSIUS 32). But Ambrose unhappily prevailed upon Theodosius to abandon a course which his stricter sense of his duty as a ruler had prompted him to take. In some obscure place in the East the Christians had been guilty of outrages, from which it had often been their lot to suffer. With the support of their bishop, they had demolished a Jewish synagogue and a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had ordered that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue at his own expense, and that the rioters, who were chiefly monks, should be punished at the discretion of the local gover- nor. This order naturally affronted the party spirit of the Christians. Ambrose could not bear that his fejlow-believers should be thus humiliated. He wrote a letter to the em- peror (who was at Milan, Ambrose being for the moment at Aquileia), entreating him most earnestly to revoke the order. With much that Ambrose says we can sympathize ; but he lays down a principle fruitful in disastrous issues : Cedat oportet censura (the functions of the civil ruler) devotioni (Ep. xl. 11). Shortly after, he had the opportunity of preaching be- fore the emperor at Milan. In a letter to his sister he gives the sermon at length, with its conclusion, addressed directly to the emperor, and begging of him the pardon of those who had been caught in a sin. When he came down from the ptilpit, Theodosius said to him, De nobis proposuisti. " Only with a view to your advantage," replied Ambrose. "In truth," continued the emperor, " the order that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue was too hard. But that is amended. The monks commit many crimes." Then he re- mained silent for a while. At last Ambrose said, " Enable me to offer the sacrifice for thee with a clear conscience." The emperor sat down and nodded, but Ambrose would not be satisfied without extracting a solemn engage- ment that no further proceedings should be taken in the matter. After this he went up to the altar ; " but I should not have gone," adds Ambrose, " unless he had given me his full promise " (Ep. xli. 28). About two years later (a.d. 390) the lament- able massacre at Thessalonica gave occasion for a very grand act of spiritual discipline. The commander of the garrison at Thessalonica and several of his officers had been brutally murdered by a mob in that city. The indigna- tion of the emperor was extreme ; and after appearing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent orders, which were executed by an indis- criminate slaughter of at least 7,000 persons in Thessalonica. Ambrose protested against this in the name of God and of the church. He had always acted on the principle that " nothing was more dangerous before God or base amongst men than for a priest not to speak out his convictions freely," and his lofty disinterestedness {non pro meis commodis faciebam, Ep. Ivii. 4) gave him great power over a religious and magnanimous mind like that of Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote him a letter (Ep. li.), which Gibbon most unjustly calls " a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject," but which most readers will feel to be worthy of its high purpose. With many protestations of respect and sympathy AMBROSIUS Ambrose urges his Emperor to a genuine repentance for the dreadful deed to which in an access of passion he had given his sanction. He intimates that he could not celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of one so stained with blood, (iibbon represents the behaviour of Ambrose as marked by a prelatical pomposity, of which there is no trace whatever in the only documents ou which we can rely. In his own letter the ■ bishop is most considerate and tender, though evidently resolute. He and Paulinus record simply that the emperor performed public penance, stripping himself of his royal insignia, and praying for pardon with groans and tears ; and that he never passed a day afterwards without grieving for his error (Paulinus, 24; Amb. de Ob. Theod. 34). In the course of the following year (391), Theodosius having returned to the East, the weak authority of Valentinian II. was over- thrown by Arbogastes and his puppet Eugenius, and the unfortunate youth perished by the same fate as his brother. He was in Gaul at the time of his death, and Ambrose was at that moment crossing the Alps to visit him there, partly by the desire of the Italian magistrates, who wished Valentinian to return to Italy, and partly at the request of the emperor himself, who was anxious to be baptized by him. In the next year (392) a funeral oration was delivered at Milan by Ambrose {de Obitu Valentimani), in which he praises the piety as well as the many virtues of the departed. It appears that under the influence of Theodosius, Valentinian had learnt to regard Ambrose with the same reverence as his brother had done before him (Letter to Theodosius, Ep. liii. 2). He had died unbaptized ; but Ambrose assures his sorrowing sisters that his desire was equivalent to the act of baptism, and that he had been washed in his pietv as the martyrs in their blood (de Ob. Val. 51-53)- Eugenius held the sovereign power in the West for two or three years, and made friendly overtures to the great Italian prelate. But Ambrose for a time returned no answer ; and when Eugenius came to Milan, he retired from that city. Shortly after this withdrawal, he wrote a respectful letter to Eugenius, explain- ing that the reason why he had refused to hold intercourse with him was that he had given permission, though himself a Christian, that the altar of Victory should be restored — the boon which Svmmachus had begged for in vain being yielded to the power of Arbogastes. When the military genius and vigour of Theodosius had gained one more brilUant triumph by the rapid overthrow of Arbogastes and Eugenius, Ambrose, who had returned to Milan (Aug. a.d. 394), received there a letter from Theodosius requesting him to offer a public thanksgiving for his victory. Ambrose replies (Ep. Ixi.) with enthusiastic congratula- tions. But the happiness thus secured did not last long. In the following year the great Theo- dosius died at Milan (Jan. 395). asking for i Ambrose with his last breath (de Obiiu Theod. I 35V The bishop had the satisfaction of paying j a cordial tribute to his memory in the funeral oration he delivered over his remains. Ambrose himself had only two more years AMBROSIUS -1 live. The time was filled with busy labours >f expositi'in, correspondence, and episcopal lucrnnieut ; and, according to Paulinus, with aril uis prodigies. Unhappily this biographer polls with his childish miracles what is still a ■ •luhinp account of the good bishop's death. t hcrame known that his strength was failing, mil the count Stilicho, saying that the death t such a man threatened death to Italy itself, luiiiccd a number of the chief men of the itv to go to him, and entreat him to pray to ..h1 that his life might be spared. Ambrose .-plied, " I have not so lived amongst you, liU I should be ashamed to live ; and I do 1 t fear to die. because we have a good rd." • For some hours before his death If l.iv with his hands crossed, praying ; as 'aulinus could see by the movement of his ips. though he heard no voice. When the .ist moment was at hand, Honoratus, the >p. of Vercellac, who was lying down in mother room, thought he heard himself thrice .ilicd, and came to .\mbrose, and offered um the Bodv of the Lord ; immediately after .-(■civing which he breathed his last breath — I man, Paulinus says well, who for the fear f ("fiul had never feared to speak the truth ■ kings or any powers. He died on Good riilav night, 307, and was buried in the \nibrosian Basilica, in the presence of a iniltitude of every rank and age, including ■\rn lews and pagans. Bv the weight of his character St. Ambrose ■ rjave a powerful support to the tendencies '■ l.vhich he favoured. He held without mis- ' Idvings that the church was the organ of God • In the world, and that secular government had - iihe choice of being either hostile or subser- >' Ivient to the Divine authority ruling in the • bhurch. To passages already quoted which "^ Express this conviction may be added a remark ■- Let fall by Ambrose at the council of Aquileia, K [' Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non H Baici de sacerdotibus " (Gesta Cone. Aqu. 51). He was of strict Athanasian orthodoxy as '■• against heresy of every colour. His views of - the work of Christ in the Incarnation, the ■ iPassion, and the Resurrection, have in a ■~ marked degree the broad and universal ''■ jcharacter which belongs to the higher pat- ; fistic theology on this subject. (For example, peaking of the resurrection of Christ, he says, Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo oelum, resurrexit in eo terra," de Fide Res. 02.) With reeard to religion and religious ractices, he is emphatic in insisting that the .'orship of the heart is all-important (" Deo nim vellc pro facto est," de Fide Res. 115 ; Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur," b. qS ; " Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem uaerit," de Poen. ii. ix.) ; but at the same time is language concerning the two Sacraments s often undeniably that of materializing theo- |logy. .\ttempts have been made, chiefly on this ccount, to call in question the Ambrosian li: |authorship of the treatises de Mysteriis and t \de Sacramentis ; but their expressions are ir lsuppf)rted by others to be found in undoubted ! |works of Ambrose. He praises his brother ;; jSat\Tus for having tied a portion of the conse- 1' i • St. Augustine was wont to express his peculiar fi- jadmiration of this saying, with its elimata ac lihrata iverba (Possidius, l^it. Aug. c. xxvii.). AMBROSIUS 21 crated elements in a napkin round his neck when he was shipwrecked, and adds, th.it having found the benefit of " the heavenly mystery " in this form, he was eager to recei\o it into his luotith — " (piam majus putabat fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum orario profuisset ! " {de Exc. Sal. 43, .}6). Ho argues for the daily reception of the Kutharist from the prayer, Give us this day our daily bread {de Sacr. v. 25). His frequent strong recommendations of virginity arc based, not on a theory of self-denial, but rather on one of detachment from the cares of the world and the troubles inseparable from matrimony and parentage. According to him. marriage is the more painful state, as well as the less favourable to spiritual devotion. Neverthe- less, he did not expect or desire a large number to embrace the life which he so highly eulo- gized. ■' Dicet aliquis : Ergo dissuades nuptias ? ego vero suadeo, ct eos damno qui dissuadere consuerunt. . . . Paucarum quippe hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium " {de Virginihtts, I. vii.). He and his sister used to press Satyrus to marry, but Satyrus put it of! through family affection — " nc a fratribus divellerctur " {de Exc. Sal. §§ 53, 59). Fast- ing is commended, not as self-torture pleasing to God, but as the means of making the bodv more wholesome and stronger. A keen sense of the restraints and temptations and annoy- ances which reside in the flesh is expressed in Ambrose's remarkable language concerning death. It is a great point with him that death is altogether to be desired. He argues this point very fully in the address de Fide ResurrecHonis and' in the essay de Bono Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he says — the death of sin, death to sin, and the death of the body {de B. M. § 3). This last is the emancipation of the soul from the body. He appeals to the arguments of philosophers and to the analogies of nature, as well as to Scripture, to shew not only that such a deliver- ance may be hoped for, but that it must be a thing to be desired by all. The terrors of the future state almost entirely disappear. He admits now and then that punishment must be looked for by the wicked ; but he affirms that even to the wicked death is a gain {de B. M. § 28). There are two reasons why the foolish fear death : one because they regard it .as destruction ; " altera, quod poenas reformi- dent, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nee tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem " {ib. 33). " Qui infidcles sunt, descendunt in infernum viventes ; etsi nobiscum videntur vivere sed in inferno stmt " (ih. 56). The see of Milan was in no way dependent upon that of Rome ; but Ambrose always delighted to pay respect to the bp. of Rome, as representing more than any other the unity of the church. His feeling towards Rome is expressed in the apology with which he defends the custom of washing the feet in baptism — a custom which prevailed at Milan but not at Rome. " In omnibus cupio scqui Ecclesiam Romanam ; sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus ; ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum, ... qui 22 AMBROSIUS sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae " {de Sacra- mentis, III. §§ 5, 6). As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude of works behind him, which show competent learning, a famihar acquaintance with Plato, Cicero, Vergil, and other classics, and much intellectual liveliness and industry. Their want of originality did not hinder them from obtaining for their author, through their popular and practical quaUties, a distinguished reputation as a sound and edifying teacher. He is often mentioned with respect by his contemporaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (see especially the latter, de Doctrind Chris- tiana, iv. 46, 48, 50). He came to be joined with them and Gregory the Great as one of the four Latin doctors of the church. His writings mav be classified under three heads, as (i) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or Didactic, and (3) Occasional. (i) The first class contains a long list of expositions, delivered first as sermons, of many books of Scripture. They begin with the Hexaemeron, or commentary on the Creation. Of this work St. Jerome says, " Nuper S. Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur" [Ep. 41). It is in a great part a literal translation from St. Basil. St. Augustine was interested by the method of interpretation in which Ambrose followed Basil, Origen, and Philo Judaeus, finding a spiritual or mystical meaning latent under the natural or historical. The Hexae- meron (6 books) is followed by de Paradiso, de Cain et Abel (2), de Noe et Area, de Abraham (2), de Isaac et Animd, de Bono Mortis, de Ftiga Saeculi, de Jacob et Beatd Vita (2), de Joseph Patriarchd, de Benediction- ibus Patriarcharum. de Elid et Jejunio, de Nabuthe Jezraelita, de Tobid, de Interpella- tione Job et David (4^, Apologia Prophetae David, Apol. altera ib.. Enarrationes in Psalmos (12), Expositio in Ps. cxviii., Expositio Evang. secundum Lucam (10). (2I The second class contains de Officiis Ministrorum (3 books), de Virginibus (3), de Viduis, de Virginitate, Exhortatio Virginitatis, de Lapsu Virginis Consecratae, de Mysteriis, de Sacramentis (6), de Poenitentid (2), de Fide (5), de Spiritu Sancto (3), de Incarna- tionis Dominicae Sacramento. Of these the books de Officiis, addressed to the clergy (imitated from Cicero), and those de Fide, mentioned above, are the most important. (3) The occasional writings, which are biographically the most valuable, are the dis- courses de Excessu Fratris sui Satvri (2), de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, de Obitu Theo- dosii Oratio, and the Epistles, ninety-one in nimiber, with the Gesta ConcHii Aquileiensis inserted amongst them. Various ecclesiastical writings have been attributed to .\mbrose, which critical exami- nation has determined to be spurious. [Am- BROSIASTER.] Most of these are given in the Benedictine edition ; in that of Migne there is an additional appendix, containing some other compositions which have borne Am- brose's name, but are either manifestly spurious or have no sufficient title to be considered genuine. Some of his genuine works appear to have been lost, especially AMMONIUS one, mentioned with high praise by St. Augustine (Ep. xxxi. 8), against those who alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato. Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the liturgical arrangement which bears his name, we know nothing more than what has been quoted above from Paulinus. [See D. C. A., arts. Liturgies ; Ambrosian Music] There are three principal editions of Am- brose's works — that of Erasmus, the Roman, and the Benedictine. Erasmus's ed. was pub. at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. He divided the works into four tomes, with the titles, (i) Ethica, (2) Polemica, (3) Orationes, Epistolae. et Condones, (4) Explanationes Vet. et Novi Testatnenti. The great Roman edition was the work of many years' labour, undertaken by the desire of popes Pius IV. and Pius V., and begun by a monk who afterwards became pope with the name of Sixtus V. It was pub. in 5 vols, at Rome, in the years 1580-1-2-5. This edition superseded all others, until the publication of the excellent work of the Bene- dictines (du Frische and Le Nourry) at Paris, A.D. 1686 and 1690. A small revised ed. of the de Officiis and the Hexaemeron has been printed in the Bibliotheca Pat. Eccl. Latin. Selecta (Tauchnitz, Leip?.). Some of his works are reprinted in the Vienna Corpus Ser. Eccl. \ Lat. ; and in the loth vol. of the Nic. and Post- j Nic. Fathers are English trans, of select works. j An elaborate Life of St. Ambrose by Baronius, I extracted from his Annales, is prefixed to the I Roman edition ; but improved upon by the more critical investigations of the Benedictine ' editors, who have laid the basis for all sub- ' sequent Lives. (Cf. Th. Forshaw, A mbrose, Bp. i of Milan, 1884 ; a Life by the due de Broglie \ in Les Saiiits, 1899 (Paris). A cheap popular , Life by R. Thornton is pub. by S.P.C.K. in.j their Fathers for Eng. Readers.) [j.ll.d.] Ammon (or Amon), St., the founder of the celebrated settlement of coenobites and her- mits on and near Mons Nitria (Ruf. de Mon. 30) ; he Is often styled the " father of Egyp- tian monasticism." He was contemporary with St. Anthony, and filled the same place in Lower Egypt as Anthony in the Thebaid. Being left an orphan by his parents, wealthy people near Alexandria, he was forced by his uncle to marry. But on the wedding day he persuaded his bride to take a vow of celibacy, and for eighteen years they lived together as brother and sister : afterwards with her con- sent he withdrew to Nitria, and from that time only visited his wife twice a year (Pall. Hist. Laiis. 8). A great multitude of zealous dis- ciples soon gathered round him ; so that Palladius not many years later found about five thousand monks, some living quite alone, some with one or more companions ; while six hundred " advanced in hoUness " (reXe ot) dwelt apart from the rest in more complete isolation (ib.). Several miracles are related of Ammon (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Soz. Hist. i. 14 ; Niceph. Hist. viii. 41). [i.g.s.] AmmoniUS, a disciple of Pambo, and one oi the most celebrated of the monks of Nitria. Being of unusual stature, he and his brothers DioscoRUS, Eusebius, and Euthymius were I called the Tall Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12). I Ammonius himself was distinguished by the I epithet wapwr-qi (Niceph. Hist. xi. 37), in AMMONIUS SACCAS consequence of having cut off one of his ears to escape being made a bisliop (Pall. Hist. Liius. 12). In his youth he accompanied St. Athanasius to Rome (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Tall. I.:). He was a learned man, and could n peat, it is said, the O. and N. T. by heart, ,1^ well as passages from Origen and other lathers (Pall. 12). He was banished to Dio- ( Mi'sarea in the persecution under Valens {ib. 117). After being for some time iiigh in favour with Theopliilus of Alexanilria, he and his brothers were accused by him of Origenism. Sozoraen (viii. 12) and Nicephorus (xiii. 10) ascribe the accusation to personal animosity >n the part of Theophilus. Socrates (vi. 7) xplains the accusation as an attempt to divert trim himself the odium which he had incurred as an Origenist. Jerome considers the ac- cusation merited (£/'. ad Alex.). Driven from Egypt, the brothers took refuge first in Pales- tine (Niceph. xiii. ii) and afterwards at Con- stantinople, where they were well received by Chrysostom (viii. 13). There they were protected also by the favour of the Empress Eudoxia (Soz. viii. 13), and even satisfied Epiphanius of Salamis, who came to Constan- tinople at the instigation of Theophilus to convict them of heresy (viii. 15). At the sj'nod "ad Quercum," held on the arrival of Theophilus, they were persuaded to submit to him, Ammonius being ill at the time. He died shortly afterwards. Perhaps this Ammonius is the author of the Instittitioiies Ascelicat', of which 22 chapters are extant (Lambec. Biblioth. Viiidob. iv. 155). [i.g.s.] Ammonius Saccas. Next to nothing is known of this philosopher. That he obtained his name of Saccas (= craKKocpopos) from having been a porter in his youth is affirmed by Suidas (under Origenes) and Ammianus Mar- cellinus (xxii. 528). He was a native of Alexandria ; Porph>Ty asserts that he was bom of Christian parents, and returned to the heathen religion. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 19, 7) denies this, but perhaps confounds him with another Ammonius, the author of a Diatessaron, still extant. That the founder of the Alexandrian school of philosophy (for such Ammonius Saccas was) should have been at the same time a Christian, though not impossible, seems hardly likely. Moreover, the Ammonius of Eusebius wrote books ; whereas, according to both Longinus and Porph\Ty, Ammonius Saccas wrote none. Plotinus is said to have been most strongly impressed with his first hearing of Ammonius, and to have cried out, " This is the man I was looking for!" [tjvtov i'^riTovv), after which he remained his constant friend till the death of the elder philosopher. Among other disciples of Ammonius were Herennius, the celebrated Longiiius, Heracles the Christian, Olympius, Antonius, a heathen called Origen, and also the famous Christian of that name. It is possible, however, that the Christians, Origen and Heracles, may have been the disciples of that Ammonius whom Eusebius confounds with Ammonius Saccas, and who was himself a Christian ; but this cannot be certainly known. We may guess sf>mething concerning the philosophy of Ammonius Saccas from the fact that Plotinus was his pupil. Hierocles {ap. Photjus) affirms that his aim was to AMPHILOCHIUS 23 reconcile the pliilosoiihies of Plato and Aris- totle, hence he appears to have combined mysticism and eclecticism. Nemesius, a bishop and a neo-Platonist of the close of the 4th cent., cites two passages, one of which he declares to contain the views of Numenius and Ammonius, the other he attributes to Ammonius alone. They concern the nature of the soul and its relation to the Ixxly ; but they appear to have been merely the tradi- tional views of Ammonius, not any actual ritten words of his. The life and philosofihy of Ammonius have been discussed by Vache- rot. Hist, de I'Ecole d'Alex. i. 342; Jules Simon. Hist, de V Ecole d' Alex. i. 204 ; Dehaut in his historical essay on the life and teaching of our philosopher; and Zeller in his Pliilo- sophie dcr Gttcchciu who also mentions other writers on .Vniinoiiius. [j.r.m.] Amphiiochius (1), archbp. of Iconium. Of this great Catholic leader, who was regarded by his contemporaries as the foremost man in the Eastern church after his friends Basil of Caesarca and Gregory of Nazianzus, very scanty information remains. The works ascribed to him are mostly spurious ; and the Life (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 14) is a later fiction. Various references to the writings of Basil and Gregory contain nearly all that is known of him and his family. Amphiiochius appears to have been a first cousin of Gregory Nazianzen. The language of Basil (Ep. 161) might imply that he was born and Uved in Basil's own town Caesarea. Gregory ex- presses regret that he did not see much of Amphiiochius during his earlier years (Ep. 13). Their intimate friendship commenced at a later date. Amphiiochius, like many other eminent Christian fathers, was educated for the bar. The letters of his cousin imply that he carried on his profession at Constantinople. It is not improbable that trouble in regard to money matters about 369 weaned Amphi- iochius from his worldly pursuits and turned his thoughts inward. He had abandoned his profession, and was then living in retirement at Ozizala, devoting himself apparently to religious exercises and to the care of his aged father. His cousin Gregory appears to have been mainly instrumental in bringing about this change. At least he says with honest pride, that " together with the pure Thecla" * he has " sent Amphiiochius to God " (Op. ii. p. 1068). And now his closer friendship with Basil and Gregory begins. Ozizala was situ- ated not far from Nazianzus, for Gregory's correspondence implies that they were near neighbours. A letter of Basil, apparently belonging to this period, is in the name of one Heraclidas, who, hke Amphiiochius, had re- nounced the profession of the bar and devoted himself to a religious life. Heraclidas, lodged in a large hospital (TrrwxoT-po^eioi') recently erected by Basil near Caesarea, and enjoying the constant instructions of the bishop, urges Amphiiochius to obtain leave from his father to visit Caesarea and profit by the teaching and example of the same instructor (Ep. 150). This letter was written in the year 372 or 373 (see Gander's Basil. Op. iii. p. cxxxiv.). The • This seems to be the same Thecla with whom Gregory elsewhere corresponds, and not the monas- tery of St. Thecla, whither Gregory retired. 24 AMPHILOCHIUS invitation to Caesarea appears to have been promptly accepted, and was fraught with immediate consequences. It does not appear that at that time Amphilochius was even ordained ; yet at the very beginning of the year 374 we find him occupying the important see of Iconium. Amphilochius can hardly have been then more than about 35 years of age. A few months before Faustinus, bp. of Iconium, had died, and the Iconians applied to the bp. of Caesarea to recommend them a successor (Basil. Ep. 138). It is impossible not to connect this apphcation to Basil with the ultimate appointment of Amphilochius. From this time forward till his death, about five years afterwards, Basil holds close inter- coiu:se with Amphilochius, receiving from him frequent visits. The first took place soon after his consecration, about Easter 374, and was somewhat protracted, his ministrations on this occasion making a deep impression on the people of Caesarea (Ep. 163, 176). It was probably in another visit in 374 (see Garnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.) that Amphilochius urged Basil to clear up all doubt as to his doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a treatise on the subject. This was the occasion of Basil's extant work, de Spiritu Sancto (see § i), which, when completed, was dedicated to the petitioner himself and sent to him engrossed on vellum [Ep. 231). During this and the following year Basil likewise ad- dresses to Amphilochius his three Canonical Letters (Ep. 188, 199, 217), to solve some questions relating to ecclesiastical order, which the bp. of Iconium had propounded to him. At this same period also we find Amphilochius arranging the ecclesiastical affairs of Isauria (Ep. 190), Lycaonia (Ep. 200), and Lycia (Ep. 218), under the direction of Basil. He is also invited by Basil to assist in the adminis- tration of his own diocese of Caesarea, which has become too great a burden for him, prostrated as he now is by a succession of maladies (Ep. 200, 201). The affectionate confidence which the great man reposes in his younger friend is a powerful testimony to the character and influence of Amphilochius. After the death of Basil, the slender thread by which we trace the career of Amphilochius is taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. Gregory writes with equal affection and esteem, and with more tenderness than Basil. He has been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius as having helped to work his cure. Sleeping and waking, he has him ever in his mind. He mentions the many letters which he has received from Amphilochius (/xvpLOLKis ypdrpuiv), and which have called forth harmonies from his soul, as the plectrum strikes music out of the lyre (Ep. 171). The last of Gregory's letters to Amphilochius (Ep. 184) seems to have been written about the year 383. Not long before (a.d. 381) Amphilochius had been present with his friend at the council of Con- stantinople, and had subscribed to the creed there sanctioned, as chief pastor of the Lycaonian church, at the head of twelve other bishops (Labb. Cone. ii. p. 1135, ed. Coleti). At this council a metropoHtan authority was confirmed to, rather than conferred on, his see of Iconium ; for we find it occupying this position even before his election to the AMPHILOCHIUS episcopate. During this sojourn at Constanti- nople he signs his name as first witness to Gregory's will (Greg. Op. ii. p. 204), in which the testator leaves directions to restore to his most reverend son the bp. Amphilochius the purchase-money of an estate at Canotala (ib. p. 203). It was probably on this occasion also that Amphilochius fell in with Jerome and read to him a book which he had written on the Holy Spirit (Hieron. de Vir. 111. 133) as Jerome is known to have paid a visit to Gregory Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Op. xi. 65 seq., ed. Vallarsi). About two years later must be placed the well-known incident in which the zeal of Amphilochius against the Arians appears (Theod. H. E. v. 16).* Obtaining an audience of Theodosius, he saluted the emperor him- self with the usual marks of respect, but paid no attention to his son Arcadius, who had recently (fewtrri) been created Augustus and was present at the interview. Theodosius, indignant at this sUght, demanded an ex- planation. " Sire," said the bishop, " any disrespect shewn to your son arouses your displeasure. Be assured, therefore, that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour and Benefactor." The emperor, adds Theo- doret, immediately issued an edict prohibiting the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius was created Augustus in the beginning of the year 383 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p. 504), and as Theodosius issued his edict against the Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apol- linarians in Sept. of that year (ib. p. 507), the date is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. Mim. eccl. vi. pp. 627 seq., 802). In 383 also we find Amphilochius taking energetic measures against heretics of a different stamp. He presided over a synod of 25 bishops assembled at Sida in Pamphylia, in which the Messalians were condemned, and his energy seems to have instigated the reUgious crusade which led to the extirpation of this heresy (Photius, Bibl. 52 ; Theod. E. H. iv. 10; cf. Labb. Cone. ii. 1209, ed. Coleti). The date of Amphilochius's death is un- certain. When J erome wrote the work quoted above, he was still hving (a.d. 392) ; and two years later (a.d. 394) his name occurs among the bishops present at a synod held at Constantinople, when the new basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul was dedicated (Labb. Cone. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On the other hand, he is not mentioned in connexion with the troubles of St. Chrysostom (a.d. 403 seq.) ; and it is a fairly safe assumption that he was no longer living. Despite the martyrologies, he probably died in middle life. His day is Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars. The works ascribed to Amphilochius (/a/H6^ ad Seleucum, Homilies, etc.) seem to be mostly spurious, with the exception of an Epistola Synodiea (Migne, p. 94), on the Macedonian heresy. Its object is to explain why the Niceiie fathers did not dwell on the doctrine of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form • Sozomen (vii. 6) tells the story, but without the name of the bishop. He describes him as "an old man, a priest of an obscure city, simple and in- experienced in affairs." This description is as unlike Amphilochius as it could possibly be, AMPHILOCHIUS of the doxology. It is entitled 'A.a0'7ox'v BaTed for rescuing and burying the bodies) are recorded in Gk. in a Vatican MS., purporting to have been written by an eye-witness named Nilus. They are foimd in Gk. and Lat. in Boll. Acta SS. May 18 ; cf. also Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 336 ; Ceillier, iii. 13. [G.T.S.] Andreas of Caesarea. [Arethas.] I Andreas Samosatensis, bp. of Samosata at i the time of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. Sickness prevented bis attending the council (Labbe, Cone. iii. 506), but he took a leading part in the controversies between Cyril and the Oriental bishops that succeeded it. With- I out identifying himself with the erroneous j teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he shewed ' himself his zealous defender, and remained j firm to him when his cause had been deserted ' bv almost all. For his zeal in the defence of [ an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita h dpdKWP. The reputation of Andreas for learning and controversial skill caused John of Antioch to select him, together with his ' attached friend Thcodoret, to answer Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe, iii. 1150 ; Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16). Cyril replied and wrote in defence of his anathemas, which called forth a second treatise from Andreas [(Labbe, iii. 827). In 433 Andreas accom- panied Alexander and Thcodoret to the council summoned at Antioch by Aristolaus the tribune, in compliance with the commands of Theodosius, to consult how the breach with Cyril might be healed (ib. 764). On the amicable reception by Acacius and John of Cyril's letter written in answer to the rescript of this council, Andreas fully sympathized with his aged metropolitan Alexander's dis- tress and indignation. Andreas deplored the recognition of Cyril's orthodoxy by so many ! bishops, and desired to bury himself in some I solitude where he might weep (ib. 784, 785, 28 ANICETUS 796, 797)- This was before he had see Cyril's letter. On perusing Cyril's own state- ment his opinions changed. What Cyril had written was orthodox. No prejudice against him ought to prevent his acknowledging it. The peace of the church was superior to all private feelings. His alteration of sentiments exasperated Alexander, who refused to see or speak to his former friend {ib. 810, 811). Andreas deeply felt this alienation of one he so much venerated, but it could not lead him to retrace his steps. He used his utmost en- deavours in vain to persuade Alexander to attend the council at Zeugma, which acknow- ledged the orthodoxy of Cyril's letter {ib. 805). His death must have occurred before 451, when Rufinus was bp. of Samosata. Theo- doret speaks of Andreas with much affection and esteem, praising his humihty and readi- ness to help the distressed (Theod. Ep. xxiv. p. 918). His own letters give us a high idea of his sound, practical wisdom, readiness to con- fess an error, and firmness in maintaining what he believed right. [k.v.] Anicetus, bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius's History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus {Adv. omn. Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot's elaborate discussion in Apost. Fathers (part i. vol. i. pp. 201-345). As Polycarp visited him at Rome, and as Polycarp's death has been fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says that "the latest possible date for the accession of Anicetus is 154," and if he sat for eleven years, as is said, his death would be in 165. Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus Mercator (Constant, p. 75)- But the single re- liable fact recorded of him has reference to the early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). He, like his four predecessors, did not allow the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within their own church, but communicated as freely as before with other churches which did allow it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to per- suade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a mark of personal respect, he allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in Rome ; but they parted without agreement, though with mutual cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 20. [G.H.M.] Anomoeans (from dro/xotos. dissimilar), one of the appellations of the radical Arians who, in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality (buooiKria) and the semi-Arian view of the likeness {opLoiovaia) of the Son to the Father, taught that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different substance {eTepoovcnos). [Arianism.] [p.s.] AnonomastUS (Iren. 56 : cf. 54). [Valen- TiNUS ; Epiphanes.] [h.] Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, a contemporary of St. Basil bp. of Caesarea in Cappodocia (Basil. Ep. 58). In 372 he joined in sub- scribing a circular letter addressed by the Oriental bishops to those of Italy and Gaul {Ep. 92). But dissensions broke out between ANTHROPOMORPHITAE them, (i) When the civil province of Cap- padocia was divided and Tyana became the capital of the second division, Anthimus, in- sisting that the ecclesiastical arrangements should follow the civil, claimed metropolitan rights over several of Basil's suffragans. Herein he was assisted by the disaffection which prevailed in Basil's province. He was even bold enough to attack Basil on a journey, and plunder a train of mules laden with sup- plies of money and provisions for the bp. of Caesarea. Basil, thinking to establish an invincible outpost against his aggressive an- tagonist, consecrated his friend Gregory bp. of Sasima, a town not far from Tyana and one over which Anthimus claimed metropolitan rights. So long as Gregory remained there, he staunchly resisted alike the enticements and the menaces of Anthimus ; but he soon resigned the see which he had unwillingly occupied. [Gregory Nazianzen.] A peace was patched up between Basil and Anthimus, apparently by the intercession of Gregory. This happened in the year 372 (Greg. Naz. Or. xHii. i. pp. 813 seq. ; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, ii. pp. 42 seq. ; Carm. ii. pp. 696 seq.). (2) A certain Faustus had applied to Basil to con- secrate him to an Armenian see ; but as he did not produce the proper authority, the consecration was deferred. Faustus imme- diately applied to Anthimus, who at once compUed with his request, thus setting canonical rules at defiance (Basil, Ep. 120, 121, 122). A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected, as Basil afterwards spoke of Anthimus in very friendly terms {Ep. 210, rbv bfj.b^vxov 7]/j.C:v). Except in connexion with Basil and Gregory, nothing is known of this prelate. (See Tillemont, Mem. eccl. ix. pp. 174 seq., 196 seq.; Gamier, Vit. Bas. Op. iii. pp. cxi. seq., pp. cxxiii. seq.) [l.] Anthropolatrae (AvUpuwdXaTpai), a nick- name given by the Apollinarians (c. a.d. 371) to the Cathohcs, on the assumption that the union of " perfect God " with " perfect Man " necessarily involved two Persons in Christ, and therefore that the Catholic exposition of the doctrine implied the worship of a man : an inference assumed to be avoided by the special Apollinarian dogma. See Apollin- aris (the Younger). The nickname in ques- tion is mentioned by St. Greg. Naz. Orat. Ii., who retorts that in truth, if any one is to be called by a name of the kind, the Apollinarian ought to be called " aapKoXaTpr^s." [a.w.h.] Anthropomorphitae {A nthropomorphism), {di'ffpojTroi, man, and t-wprpi), form). Terms applied to those who ascribe to God human shape and form. We must distinguish two kinds of anthropomorphism, a doctrinal and a symbolical. The former is heretical, the latter Scriptural, and necessarily arises from the imperfection of human language and human knowledge of God. The one takes the Scripture passages which speak of God's arm, hand, eye, ear, mouth, etc., hterally ; the other understands and uses them figuratively. Anthropomorphism is always connected with anthropopathism (from dvUpuTros and irdOoi, passion), which ascribes to God human pas- sions and affections, such as wrath, anger, envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, however, does not necessarily imply the ; 1 ANTIDIKOMARIANITAE f riner. All forms of idolatry, especially tl'.ose of Greece and Rome, are essentially uithropomorphic and anthropopathic. The 1 i>sical divinities are in character siniply ilied men and women. The Christian, vish, and Mohammedan religions teach It God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him >ve the reach of materialistic and sensual nceptions and representations. But within ■ Christian church anthropomorphism ap- . ared from time to time as an isolated opinion ; ; as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often . (i.irged with it, because he ascribed to God a bodv {Adv. Prax. c. 7 : " (Juis enim nega- bit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie "). But he probablv identified corporeality with substantiality, and hence he maintained that everything real had a body of some kind (tie Carne Chr. c. 11 : " Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est "). The pseudo-Clementine Homilies (xvii. 2 seq.) teach that God, in order to be an object of love, must be the highest beauty, and consequently have a body, since there is no beautv without form ; nor could we pray to a God Who was mere spirit. (Cf. Baur, Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmettgeschichte, vol. i. p. 412.) In the middle of the 4th cent. Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold censor of the luxury and vices of the clergy, and an ; irregularlv consecrated bishop, founded a strictly ascetic sect, which were called A udians or Anthropomorphites, and maintained them- selves, in spite of repeated persecution, till the close of the 5th cent. He started from a literal interpretation of Gen. i. 28, and reasoned from the natiu-e of man to the nature of God, Whose image he was (Epiphanius, Haer. 70 ; Theod. H. E. iv. 9 ; Walch, Kel- \ serhistorie, iii. 300). During the Origenistic 1 controversies towards the end of the 4th cent., ' anthropomorphism was held independently by many Egyptian monks in the Scetic desert, who, with Pachomius at their head, were the most violent opponents of the spiritualistic theology of Origen, and were likewise called Anthropomorphites ; they felt the need of material conceptions in their prayers and ascetic exercises. Theophilus of Alexandria, formerly an admirer of Origen, became his bitter opponent, and expelled the Origenists from Egypt, but nevertheless he rejected the Anthropomorphism of the anti-Origenistic monks (Ep. Pastr. for 399). In the present century Anthropomorphism has been revived by the Mormons, who conceive God as an intelligent material being, with body, mem- bers, and passions, and unable to occupy two distinct places at once. [p-S.] Antidlkomarianitae ( XfTibiKoixapiavirai = Adversaries of Mary : Epiph. Haer. Ixxxix.). The name given to those in Arabia in the latter part of the 4th cent, who (in opposition to the KoXXi'piSidi'iSes) maintained the novel supposi- tion advanced at that time by Bonosus of Sadica, and by Helvidius, that " our Lord's brethren " were children borne by the Blessed Virgin to Joseph after our Lord's birth. The controversy arose out of the then prevailing reverence for virginity, which in its extreme form had led certain women, originally from Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate ANTONINUS, PIUS 29 an idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, bv taking certain cakes (>io\\vpibf%) about in chariots, and then solenuilyolTcring thorn to her and consuming them, in imitation of the Lord's Supper, or (more probablv) of the pagan wor- ship of Ceres. The reaction from this super- stition led to the existence of the sect spoken of in this article, which, contemporaneously with the controversy carried on by St. Jerome and by others against Helvidius and Bonosus, the literary supporters of the hypothesis, was led to endeavour to cut away all pretence for the CoUyridian superstition by adopting their view and so denying its very groundwork. The controversy itself is discussed in Smith's D. B. (4 vols. 1893) under Brothers and James, and in Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908) under James. For its literary history, see under Helvidius, HiLRONVMUS. ' [A.W.H.] Antiochus (l),bp. of Ptolemais, c. a.d. 401. To displav his oratorical powers in a wider field he left Ptolemais and settled at Con- stantinople, where his fine voice and appro- priate action, together with the eloquent and perspicuous character of his discourses, soon attracted large auditories, by whom, Uke his great contemporary John, he was surnamed " The Golden-mouthed." Having amassed considerable wealth, he returned to his de- serted see, where he employed his leisure in composing a long treatise " against avarice." He took a zealous part in the proceedings against Chrysostom, and is reckoned by Pall- adius among his bitterest enemies. He died in the reign of Arcadius, before a.d. 408, and, according to Nicejihorus, his end, like that of all the enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. A homilv on The Cure of the Blind Man is also mentioned. With the exception of a \ sentence quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a ! longer fragment given in the Catena on St. ' John, xix. p. 443, his works have perished (Socr. vi. II ; Soz. viii. 10 ; Niceph. xiii. 26; (;ennadius in Catalog. ; Pallad. Dialog, p. 49 ; Fabr. Bibl. Gk. ix. 259)- [e-v-I Antipopes, claimants to the popedom in opposition to the lawful popes. There were seven such during the first six centuries, some owing their elevation to the existence of con- flicting parties at Rome, others intruded into the see bv the civil power. A fuller account of them, with the authorities, is given under their respective names — viz. Novatianus ; Felix; Ursinls (or Ursicinus) ; Eulalius ; Laurentius; Dioscorus; Vigilius. [J. B-Y.] Antoninus, Pius, emperor, a.d. 138- 161. The character of this prince as loving righteous- ' ness and mercy, choosing rather, in his own noble words, " to save the life of one citizen than to slay a thousand foes," shewed itself, as in other things, so also in his treatment of the Christians of the empire. Hackian had checked the tendency to persecution by im- posing severe penalties on false accusers (Just. Mart. Apol. i. c. 68). In some way or other, Antoninus was led to adopt a policy which was even more favourable to them (Xiphilin. Epit. Dion. Cass, i, 70, p. ii73)- Melito, writing his Apologia to Marcus Aure- lius (Hus. H. E. iv. 26), speaks of edicts which Antoninus had issued, forbidding any new and violent measures against the Christians. A 30 ANTONIUS more memorable proof of his tolerance is found, if the document be genuine, in the decree addressed to the general assembly of the proconsular province of Asia, at a time when the Christian church was exposed to outrages of all kinds {irpos to kolvov ttis 'Acr/as). It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence of the Christians, declares the charges against them to be unproved, bids men admire the steadfastness and faith with which they met the earthquakes and other calamities that drove others to despair, ascribes the perse- cution to the jealousy which men felt against those who were truer worshippers of God than themselves. Unfortunately, however, the weight of both textual and internal evidence preponderates against the genuine- ness of the edict as it stands, but some modern authorities are disposed to regard it as an interpolated form of a real edict of similar character. See, e.g., Renan, L'Eglise Chretienne, p. 302. In any case it is natural to connect the more lenient policy, which there is no doubt that Antoninus adopted, with the memorable Apologia which Justin addressed to him. Confining ourselves to its bearing on the charac- ter of the emperor, we note (ij that there had been at least the threat of persecution even unto death (c. 68) ; (2) that it is wTitten throughout in a tone of manifest respect as to men not unworthy of the epithets that were attached to their names (" Pius " to Anto- ninus, " philosopher " to Verissimus and Lucius) ; (3) that the mere fact of the dedi- cation and, apparently, presentation of such an address implies a tolerance which had not been often found in preceding emperors ; (4) that even the forged document, if it be such, shews a certain verisimilitude in the ascription of such a document to him. See Champagny, Les Antonines (Paris), and Aube, Hist, des Persecut. (Paris, 1875). pp. 297-341. [e.h.p.] Antonius, St. (Abbas), termed by Athan- asius " the founder of asceticism " and his life a "model for monks" (Praef. Vit. St. Ant.). We have a tolerably complete, but probably interpolated, biography of him by Athanasius, derived in part from his o\vn recollections, in part from others who had known him, as well as frequent mention of him by the ecclesiastical historians ; and we shall here treat Anthony as a historic char- acter, despite the recent assumption that he is "a myth" (see, e.g., Gwatkin's Arian Con- troversv, 1891, and cf. F. W. Farrar, Contemp. Rev. 1SS7, pp. 617-627). Anthony was bom c. a.d. 250 at Coma, on the borders of Upper Egypt (Soz. Hist. i. 13). By his parents, who were wealthy Christians, he was trained in pious habits (Athan. Vit. St. Ant. ; Aug. de Doct. in Prol). Six months after the death of his parents, being then 18 years of age, he chanced to hear in church the words " If thou wilt be perfect," etc., and re- solved to obey the precept literally, reserving only a small portion for his sister. Returning into the church he heard, " Take no thought for the morrow." On this he resolved to commend her to the care of some devout woman, and gave away all his property to the poor (Athan. cf. Soz. i. 13). At that time cells of Anchorites [fiovaaT-rfpLa) ANTONIUS were very rare in Egypt, and none far from the habitations of men. Anthony retired by degrees farther and farther from his native village, fixing his abode first in a tomb, afterwards in a ruined castle near the Nile. Here he remained some 20 years, shut up for months at a time with only bread and water (the bread of the country is said to be good for keeping), and issuing forth only to instruct the multitudes who flocked to see and hear him ; at other times communication was pre- vented by a huge stone at the entrance. During the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 311), in which their bishop had fallen, he went to comfort the Christians of Alexandria ; and though the presence of monks at these trials was forbidden as encouraging the martyrs in their disobedience to the emperor's edict, he persisted in appearing in court. When the storm had ceased he withdrew, though now an old man, to a more complete isolation than ever, near the Red Sea ; and here, to save his disciples the trouble of bringing him food, he made a small field of wheat, which he culti- vated with his own hands, working also at making mats. From time to time he re- visited his former disciples in the Thebaid, always, however, declining to preside over a convent. About a.d. 335 he revisited Alex- andria, at the urgent request of Athanasius, to preach against the Arians (Theod. Hist. iv. 27), and there was followed by crowds as " the man of God." But he soon returned to the congenial seclusion of his cell, and there died, at the great age of 105, in the presence of the two disciples, Amathas and ^Iacarius, who had ministered to his wants during the last 15 years. To them he bequeathed his hair-shirt ; and the rest of his worldly goods, liis two woollen tunics and the rough cloak on which he slept, to bp. Serapion and St. Athanasius (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.). The fame of Anthony spread rapidly through Christendom ; and the effect of his example in inducing Christians, especially in the East, to embrace the monastic Ufe is described by his biographers as incalculable. In the next century he began to be venerated as a saint by the Greek church, and in the I ninth by the Latin. St. Jerome says he was the author of seven Epistles to certain Eastern monasteries, which have been translated from the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. de Script. 88), but whether these are the same as those now extant in Latin is doubtful (cf. Erdinger's ed. of them (Innsbruck, 1871). Though by all accounts far from being a learned man (Soz. Hist. i. 13 ; Niceph. Hist. vii. 40 ; Athan. Vit. St. Ant.), his dis- courses are evidence that he was not alto- gether illiterate. His influence was great at the court of the emperor. Constantine the Great and his sons wTote to him as a father (Athan.), and when Athanasius was contending with the Meletians, Anthony wTote from his cell to the emperor in behalf of his friend (Soz. ii. 31). His austerities were great ; as a rule he fasted till sunset, and sometimes for four days together. Of sleep he was equally sparing. His coarse rough shirt is said to have lasted him for a lifetime ; and his only ablutions seem to have been involuntary in wading occasionally through a river. Yet APHRAAT e lived to an unusual age, robust, and in full ession of his faculties to the last. He not morose to others ; only to iieretics he austere and repulsive, refusins to hold y intercourse with them even for a moment. e was careful always, though so universally vered, not to arrogate to himself priestly ctions, shewing, even in his old age, a marked and studious deference even to the youngest deacons. Anthony was evidently a man, not merely of strong determination, but of ability, and the discourses, if indeed they are his, which his disciples record as adtircssed to themselves and to the pagan philosophers who disputed with him, shew that if he read Uttle he thought much. He met objections against the tloc- trines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection as mysterious by the retort that the pagan mythology, whether in its grossness as appre- hended by the vulgar or as the mystical system of philosophers, was equally above reason. From their dialectical subtleties he appealed to facts, to a Christian's contempt of death and triumph over temptation ; and con- trasted the decay of pagan oracles and magic with the growth of Christianity in spite of persecutions. He taught that prayer to be Cxfect must be ecstatic (Cass. Coll. ix. 31). Lngled with sound and practical advice are strange stories of his visions, in which he describes himself as engaged continually in deadly conflict with evil spirits. Beyond these encounters and powers of exorcism it is not clear how far and in what manner Anthony believed himself able to work miracles. It would indeed be strange if so lonely an existence did not breed many in- voluntary and unconscious illusions ; still more Strange if those whose eyes were dazzled by the almost more than human self-abnegation of the great eremite had not exaggerated this aspect of his story. Among the many in whom the marvellous experiences of Anthony awoke a longing to renounce the world was Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 12). A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine le Grand (Tours, 1898). [i.G.s.] Aphraat {.iphrahat, Farhad, " the Sage of Persia"). Little is known of the life of this writer, who was the principal theologian of the Persian {i.e. Eastern or Ncstorian) church in the 4th cent. He was born late in the 3rd cent., and was certainly a monk, and probably a bishop of his church. Tradition says that he resided at the monastery of Mar Mattai, near Mosul, and was bishop in that province. Either at his baptism or consecration he adopted the name Jacob ( ^SCVxri^j ) in addition to his own, and for this reason his works have sometimes been attributed to better-known namesakes. In the year 344 he presided over a council of the church of his province (Adiabene), and the synodal letter is included in his works {Homily xiv.). Sapor's persecution was then raging in the country, but is known to have been, for local reasons, less severe in this district than elsewhere. The time and man- ner of his death are not known. Works. — These consist of a collection of 22 Homilies, written at the request of a friend (a APHTHARTODOCETAE 31 monk) to give an exposition of the Christian faith. Their importance consists in the picture that they give of the current teaching of an independent church, already organized under its own primate, outside the Roman empire. The language is Syriac, the quota- tions from the O.T. are taken from the Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the dospels from the Diatessaron. Some of his inter- pretations (e.g. Horn. XV.) shew signs of Jewish or " Talmudical " teaching. Doctrine. — As a theologian, Aphraat is strikingly independent and remote from the controversies of his day in the Roman empire. Writing 20 years after the council of Nicaea, he expresses himself in a way impossible for any one who had heard of the Arian contro- versy, whatever his s\ini)atliies in it ; with him we are back in the indcfmitencss of an earlier age, when an orthodox writer might use on one page the language of psilanthropism (Horn, xvii.) and on another confess both the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (vi. 11.). This is consistent with the fact that the " church of the East " was so isolated that it was never asked to accept the Nicene Creed till the year 410 ; and apparently used, till that date, the formula that Aphraat gives (Horn. i.). See Nestorian Church. A curious feature in Aphraat's teaching is the use of expressions that jjlainly suggest that he regarded the Holy Spirit as the female element in the Godhead (xviii. 10). It is a thought strange to us, but not necessarily unorthodox, and natural to a mind of Semitic cast, that used a word for " spirit " that is feminine ; its absence from Greek and Latin theology may account in part for the enthrone- ment of another figure as Queen of Heaven. Aphraat's whole teaching has the ascetic cast natural to a 4th-cent. Oriental monk. The celibates (xviii.) are emphatically the aristo- cracy of the church, the professors of the higher life, who alone can attain to true communion with God. Any one who doubts his own capacity for the keeping of a vow of virginity, which apparently was often taken at the time of baptism, is advised to marry before that rite, a fall subsequent to it being a heinous sin (vii. 10). Nevertheless, all are warned that open abandonment of the reso- lution and avowed marriage is better than secret incontinence. Broadly, Aphraat shews us the existence of an independent Oriental theology, which, however, was not allowed to develop on its own lines, but was assimilated to Greek standards a few generations later. This was a distinct loss to the fullness of Christian thought, and a misfortune to the Syriac church itself, in that it soon shewed itself unable to think on Greek lines, so that schisms resulted that endure to this day. Parisot, Patrol. Syriac. Aphraatis Demonstrationes ; Labourt. Christiamsme dans Vempire perse ; Burkitt, Earlv Eastern Christianity, [w.a.w.] Aphthartodocetae (from dtptiapros, incor- ruptible, and ooK^ij}, to think), a sect of the MoNOPHvsiTES, which arose in the 6th cent. They were also called Phantasiastae, because they appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of Christ, and to border on Docetism ; and Julianists, from their leader Julian, bp. of 32 APION Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis. They argued, from the com- mingling (avyxvffis) of the two natures of Christ, that the body of our Lord, from the very beginning, became partaker of the in- corruptibiUty of the Logos, and was subject to corruptibihty merely Kar' oiKovofxiav. They appealed in proof especially to Christ's walking on the sea during His earthly Hfe. Their opponents among the Monophysites, the Severians (from Severus, patriarch of Anti- och), maintained that the body of Christ before the Resurrection was corruptible, and were hence called Phihartolatrae {<^i>9apTo\dTpai. from ed by an anonynaous writer who probably te at the end of the gth cent. (Auctor, ■ ,lli Synodici apud Labbe et Cossart, i. 599) it Apolinaris on this occasion assembled uty-six other bishops in council, and ex- amunicated Montanus and Maximilla, as 11 as the shoemaker Theodotus. Besides works mentioned by Eusebius, who does ; i^ive his list as a complete one, Theodoret :.i!-r. Fab. a. 21) mentions (6) that Apolinaris te against the Encratites of the school of . rrus (7rp6s rous ^(ovrjpiavoui 'KyKparirai). I'hotius (Cod. 14) mentions having read linaris's work wpHi EWTjj'ai Kai irfpi "'fi'aj Kai TTfpi evctSfiat. (8) In the pre- . c to the Alexandrian Chronicle a work Tfp* Tov irdffxo- is attributed to Apolinaris, ■■■ from which two extracts are furnished '' which have given rise to much contro- '- versy; the main point bein^ whether (if the '?: fragments are genuine) Apolinaris wrote fc lon the side of the practice of the Roman I hurch, or on that of the (Juartodeciraans of '..1 >iinor. In support of the former v^iew .rged the similarity of the language of these laments with that of Clement of Alexandria ''■ and of Hippolytus, who advocated the VVest- ^E em practice ; and also the fact that Apolin- ''- arts is not claimed as a Quartodeciman by E-: Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor of Rome. On the other side it is urged It, that Apolinaris speaks of his antagonists as 1,^ 1" some who raise contention through ignor- cc lance," language which would rather convey vp {the impression that Apolinaris was writing i; [against the opinions of some small sect than IL .that he was combating the belief of the whole t, jchurch of Asia Minor to which he belonged; k: land it is further urged that if Apolinaris had iti I been the first to defend in the East the prac- tice which ultimately prevailed, it is incredible that neither Eusebius nor any early writer mentions this early champion of the Catholic practice. Socrates the historian (H. E. iii. 7) names Apolinaris, together with Irenaeus, Clement, and Serapion, as holding the doctrine that our Lord when He became man had a human soul (l.w^i'xov tov ivavdpijjiryjaavTa). Apolinaris had been set down as a Chiliast on St. Jerome's authority (de Vir. III. c. 18), but Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 174) has given good reason for thinking that the ApoUinaris intended is the younger ApoUinaris, of Laodicea ; since Jerome speaks of Irenaeus and ApoUinaris as the first and the last of the Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. Comm. in Ezech. c 36, iii. 952), and also states that ApoUi- naris answered Dionysius of Alexandria (Prooem. in Ub. xviii. Comm. Esaiae iii. 478). The Martyrologies commemorate the death of ApoUinaris on Feb. 7. Of the year or of the place and manner of his death nothing is known; but that it was before the end of the 2nd cent, may be inferred from the lan- guage in which he is described in the letter of Serapion written about that time (KXai'Sioc 'AroXtfopiou ToiJ naKapiwraTov yevofitvov iv le/MT^Xet T^j 'Affias iiriaKbirov). [g.s.] ApoUlnarianism, ApoUinarians, Apolli- narists. [.VrouiiSAKis tmk Vouncer.] ApoUinaris, St. and Mart., first bp. or arclibp. of Ravenna, pcrliaps fron\ 50-7.S. .According to the Life written by .\gneUus in 9th cent. (Lihcr Ponli/icalis, ap. .Muratori, Rer. It. Scrif^l. ii. part i.), St. .ApoUinaris was a native of Antioch, well instructed in Clk. and Lat. literature, who followed St. Peter to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. On his way he healed the son of Irenaeus who was blind, and did other miracles. At Rav- enna he baptized in the river Bidens, and raised the daughter of the patrician Rufus to life ; imprisoned by the heathen near the capitol, he was there fed by angels. After- wards, being expelled from the city, he preached in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, and Corinth. After three years he returned, suffered new persecutions, and did new mir- acles, destroying a statue and temple of .\pollo by his prayers. He was martyred under Vespasian, after an episcopate of over 28 years. Other lives, such as that in the Ada Sanc- torum, are more full of miracles, but do not add anything else of importance. The day of his death is agreed upon as July 23 ; the year may have been 78. From a sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus in 5th cent. (No. 128, pp. 552 seq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. -•VpoUinaris was the only bp. of Ravenna who suffered martyrdom, and that he, strictly speaking, can only be called a confessor. He did not die, it would seem, a violent death, though it may have been hastened by the persecutions he underwent. Probably, like his successor Aderitus, he died in the port- town Classis, where he was buried. A new church, still existing, was built about the same time as that of St. Vitale, and into this his body was translated by St. Maximianus c. 552. The mosaic over the apse seems to realize the words of St. Peter Chrysologus {U.S.), " Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo medius assistit in grege." As early as 575 it was the custom to take solemn oaths upon his reUcs (St. Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 61). His body was taken to Ravenna in 15 15 for safety, but restored in 1655 (see authorities in Acta Sanctor. for July 23). This most interesting basiUca, with the vacant monas- tery adjoining, is now the only remnant of the town of Classis. [j-w.] ApoUinaris (or, according to Greek ortho- graphy, Apollinarius) the Elder, of Alex- andria, was born about the beginning of the 4th cent. After teaching grammar for some time at Berytus in Phoenicea, he removed, A.D. 335, to Laodicea, of which church he was made presbyter. Here he married and had a son, afterwards the bp. of Laodicea. [Apqlunaris the Ygu.vger.] Both father and son were on intimate terms with the heathen sophists Libanius and Epiphanius of Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the latter, on which account they were admonished and, upon their venturing to sit out the recitation of a hymn to Bacchus, excommuni- cated by Theodotus, bp. of Laodicea, but restored upon their subsequent repentance (Socr. Eccl. Hist. iii. 16 ; Soz. vi. 25). The elder ApoUinaris is chiefly noted for 34 APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER his literary labours. When the edict of J ulian, A.D. 362, forbade the Christians to read Greek literature, he undertook with the aid of his son to supply the void by reconstructing the Scriptures on the classical models. Thus the whole BibUcal history down to Saul's accession was turned into 24 books of Homeric hexameters, each superscribed, like those of the Iliad, by a letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, tragedies, and comedies, after the manner of Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, followed. Even the Gospels and Epistles were adapted to the form of Socratic disputation. Two works alone remain as samples of their in- domitable zeal: a tragedy entitled Christus Pattens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited among the works of Gregory Nazianzen ; and a version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexa- meters. The most that can be said of this Psalter is that it is better than the tragedy, and that as a whole it fully bears out the reputation of the poet (Basil. Ep. 273, 406) that he was never at a loss for an expression. Socrates, who is more trustworthy than Sozo- men (v. 18), ascribes the O.T. poems to the father (iii. 16), and adds that the son as the greater rhetorician devoted his energies to converting the Gospels and Epistles into Platonic dialogues. He likewise mentions a treatise on grammar compiled by the elder Apollinaris, XP"^''""""*V tvttu}. For different opinions as to the authorship of father and son, cf. Vossius, de Hist. Graec. ii. 18 ; de Poet. Graec. c. g ; Duport, Praef. ad Metaph. Psalm. (Lond. 1674). The Metaphrasis Psahnorum was pubUshed at Paris 1552 ; by Sylburg, at Heidelberg, 1596 ; and subsequently in various collections of the Fathers. The latest edition is that in Migne's Patr. Gk. xxiii. [e.m.y.] Apollinaris the Younger, bp. of Laodicea flourished in the latter half of the 4th cent., and was at first highly esteemed, even by Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture piety, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed during the Arian controversv, until he intro- duced a Christological heresy which is called after him, and which in some respects pre- pared the way for Monophysitism. He assisted his father in rewriting the Christian Scriptures in imitation of the style of Homer, Menander, etc., mentioned in the preceding article. He also wrote in defence of Christian- ity against J uUan and Porphyry ; of orthodoxy against the Manicheans, Arians, Marcellus, Eunomius, and other heretics ; Biblical com- mentaries, and other works, of which only fragments remain. Jerome enjoyed his in- struction, A.D. 374. He did not secede from the communion of the church and begin to form a sect of his own till 375. He died about 392. After his death his followers, who were not numerous, were divided into two parties the Polemians and Valentinians. His doctrine was condemned by a synod of Alexandria (not naming him), by two synods at Rome under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the second oecumenical council (381). Imperial decrees prohibited the pubUc worship of the Apollinarists (388, 397, 428), until during the 5th cent, they were absorbed partly by the orthodox, partly by the Monophysites. But the peculiar Christology of ApoHinaris has APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER reappeared from time to time, in a modified shape, as an isolated theological opinion. Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy to Christology pro- per, and to call the attention of the church to the psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity of Christ ; but in his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of His true Humanity. Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato (aOi/xa, \pvxv, TTvev/xa), for which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ a human body ((rw/xa) and a human soul (the ^'vxv S.'^oyos, the anima animans which man has in common with the animal), but not a rational spirit (foPs, trvev/xa. \pvxv XoyiKrj, anima rationalis), and put in the place of the latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the idea of a mere connexion of the Logos with the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity of the two, and so a true incarnation ; but he sought this at the expense of the most important constituent of man. He reached only a ^eo's (xapKocpopos, as Nestorianism only an 8.v6pwKos 6eo(p6pos, instead of the proper Oedvdpwiros. He appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, " the Word was made flesh "— not spirit ; " God was manifest in the fl_esh," etc. To which Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that in these passages the term adp^ was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature. In this way Apollinaris estabUshed so close a connexion of the Logos with human flesh, that all the divine attributes were trans- ferred to the human nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the two merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and a worship of His flesh. He made Christ a middle being between God and man, in Whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts human were fused in the unity of a new nature. He even ventured to adduce created analogies of mixtures in nature. Christ, said he, is oCre dudpiowos oXos, ovre deos, dWd deov koI d.vdpuTrov pii^ii. On the other hand, he re- garded the orthodox view of a union of full humanity with a full divinity in one person — of two wholes in one whole — as an absurdity, in a similar category with the mythological figure of the Minotaur. But the Apolhnarian idea of the union of the Logos with a trun- cated human nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster. Starting from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, but denying the completeness of Christ's humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which likewise put the divine Logos in the place of the human spirit in Christ. But he strongly asserted Christ's unchangeableness, while Arians taught His changeableness (rpfTrroTTjs). The faith of the church revolted against such a mutilated and stunted humanity of Christ, which necessarily involved also a merely partial redemption. The incarna- tion is an assumption of the entire human nature, sin only excluded. The ivadpKuai.'s is ivavdpih-n-Qji^. To be a full and complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man (TeXe£Oj &vdp(,}ivos'). The spirit or rational soul is the most important element in man. APOLLONIUS 111' siMt of iiitelligcmc and freedom, and I .lis redemption as well as the soul and the ).il\- ; for sin has corrupted all the faculties. Athanasius, the two t".rej,'ories, Basil, and Ipiplianius combated the ApolUnarian error, )Ut were unpreparctl to answer duly its aain point, that two intesjral persons cannot urni one person. The liter orthodox doc- riiu' surmounted this ditSculty by teaching lie impersonality of the hunian nature of hrist, and by making the personality of lirist to reside wholly in the Logos. .VpoUinarianism opened the long line of hristological controversies, which resulted in he Chalcedonian symbol. luERATUKE. — Of the Writings of Apollt- .^. TTtpl ffipKibiTfUS. Trffi 7r/(TTfws, TTtpi avaard- scird \-60d\eio»'. and other polemical and _ lical works and epistles, only fragments ■mam in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and ■ "hoodoret, in Leontius Byzant. in the Catenae, | lui in .\ngelo Mai's i^ova Bihlioiheca Patrum, . vii. (Rom. 1834) pt. ii. pp. 82-91. ast ApoUinaris are directed Athanasius's .<.i Apollinariutn, or rather Trfpi aapKwaews i\vplov ij.u.CJi' 'I. \. {Opera, ed. Bencd. tom. . I't. ii. pp. 921-953). written about 372 \ith.>ut naming ApoUinaris; Gregory of syssa, A670S, dfTipprjTiKos Trpbs ra 'Airo\- .napiov, first edited by Zaccagni, Rom. 1698, iiid then by Gallandi, .Bji)/. Vet. Patr. vi. 517- ,77 ; Basilius M., Ep. 263 (Opera, ed. Ben. t. ii. pt. ii. 391 sqq.) ; Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. ; rheod. Fabulae Haer. iv. 8, v. 9. Of the ater literature, cf. especially Petavius, de In- \artuitione Verbi, i. c. 6 ; Dorner, History of Zhristology, i. 974-1080; Neander, History, • 334-33^ ; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, iii. 708-714 ; Harnack, Dogmengesch. I1909), ii. 324-334 ; Thomasius, Dogmengesch. I1889), 314 f. ; Schwaue, Dogmengesch. (1895), 1:77-283; G. Voisin, L'ApoUinarisme (Paris, I901). [P.S.] I ApoUontus, M. [CoMMODus.] I Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the loubtful authority of the writer of Prae- iestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him bp. !)f Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and jill other earlier testimony makes it difficult to lay much stress on this statement. He wrote II work in five books against the Cataphrygian hr Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first hree books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. 18), and contain much that is curious nd valuable with regard to the lives and haracters of Montanus, the prophetesses riscilla and Maximilla, and their followers. erome also devotes an article to Apollonius. 'if. Illust. c. 50, in which he calls him durip Woyifiurraro^, the author of a fj-iya Kal Trlaijixou Ttvxos, and quotes him as stating hat .Montanus and his prophetesses hanged Ihcmselves. The book professes to be written \o years after the commencement of Mon- lauus's pretensions to prophesy. Taking for I he rise of .M<-)ntanism the date given in the '•r'>>i»co« of Eusebius (a.d. 172), this would ibout A.D. 210 for the date of this work. liius mentions also that Apollonius cites Revelation of St. John, that he relates the iiMiig to life of a dead man at Ephesus by lir same John, and that he makes mention APOLLONIUS 35 of the tradition quoted also by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vi. 5 sub finem) from the Apocryphal "Preaching of I'eter " that our Lord commanded His apostles not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years after His ascension. This wi^)rk of Apollonius was thought suffi- ciently important by TertuUian to demand an answer ; bk. vii. of his lost work, de Ecstasi, was devoted to a refutation of his assertions (Hii-ron. de Vir. III. c. 50). Tille- mont. Hist. Eccl. ii. 426; Bi)nwetsch. Gcsch. dcs Montanismus (Erlanger, 1881). [e.v.] Apollonius of Tyana. The life of this philosopher is related by Philostratus, but the entire fabulousness of his story is obvious. The prodigies, anachronisms, and geographical blunders, and entire absence of other authority are fatal to it (see H. Conybeare in the Guard- ian, June 21, 1893, anci Ai)nlloii. Apology, Acts, etc. Loud. 1894). Philostratus indeed claims the authority of " the records of cities and temples, and Apollonius's epistles to the Eleans, Dclphians, Indians, and Egyptians " ; but the cities and temples are nameless. What, then, can we really be said to know of Apollonius of Tyana ? That he was born at Tyana and educated at Acgae, that he professed Pythagoreanism, and that he was celebrated in his day for what were considered magical arts, are the only facts that rest on altogether unexceptionable authority. The account of his opposition to the Stoic Euphrates may perhaps also be taken as authentic. His reputation as a magician is confirmed by the double authority of Moera- genes and Lucian (Pseudomantis, c. 5). Yet there are also reasons for believing that he was more than a mere magician, and even a philosopher of some considerable insight. Eusebius (Pracp. Ev. p. 1506) quotes a pas- sage from his book On Sacrifices (with the reservation " Apollonius is said to write as follows "), which if really his is certainly re- markable. All later authorities base their accounts on the Life by Philostratus ; except Origen, who quotes Mocragenes. Hierocles mentions Maximus of Aegae and Damis, but probably only knew of them through Philos- tratus. We now come to the collection of letters still extant which are attributed to Apollonius. Prof. Jowett (in the D. of G. and K. Biogr.) thinks that part may be genuine ; but Kayser and Zeller reject them summarily, and most writers on .Apollonius barely mention them. Zeller even says that they are obviously composed to suit the Life by Philostratus. We do not think that this opinion can be held by any one who attentively compares the letters with the biography ; and we think it probable that the letters, whether genuine or not, were composed before the work of Philostratus, and hence form our earliest and best authority respecting Apollonius. The question arises, Had Philostratus in the biography any idea of attacking Christianity by setting up a rival to Christ ? Hierocles, at the end of the 3rd cent., was the first person who actually applied the work of Philostratus to this purpose, as is said expressly by Euse- bius, who replied to him. The Deists of the i8th cent., both in France and England, used them thus: but whereas Hierocles would admit the miracles both of Christ and of Apollonius, 36 APOLLONIUS Voltaire and Lord Herbert had an equal dis- belief in both. Naturally, none of these writers held that Philostratus wrote in direct imitation of the Gospels, as it would have marred their point to do so. But equally naturally the orthodox writers, beginning with Huet, bp. of Avranches, and coming down through Paley to our own day, have considered Philostratus a direct though con- cealed antagonist of Christianity. This view has been opposed in Germany by Meiners, Neander, Buhle, and Jacobs, and in England by Watson [Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1867). Baur took an intermediate view in his Apollonius von Tyana unci Christus, Tlibingen, 1832), which in its main outline will we think com- mend itself as by far the most probable ac- count. According to this view Philostratus wrote with no strictly polemical reference to Christianity, but, in the eclectic spirit of his time, strove to accommodate Christianity to the heathen religion. We are disposed to believe, without attributing to Philostratus any formal design of opposing or assimilating Christianity, that he was strongly influenced by its ideas and history. The central aim of his biography is to set forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, but an example of supreme wisdom for humanity to imitate. It is not imphed by this that Philostratus considered Apollonius as entirely and necessarily unique among men ; but it is implied that he considered him as more than a mere teacher of doctrine, as a pattern to men in his own person, as one in whom wisdom and truth were incorporate. He wished men to honour Apollonius himself, and not merely to study or believe certain truths delivered by Apollonius. This cannot, we think, be doubted by any one who reflects on the whole tone of the book. Apollonius is called " divine " ; his disciples stand in an altogether different relation to him from that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to Socrates ; they do not argue with him as equals with an equal ; they follow him, listen to him, are rebuked by him. His miracles, again, do not result from his being in posses- sion of any secret communicable to other men, but arise from his own nature and wisdom. Such a character must remind us, however different in some respects, of the Christ of the Gospels. But was any character like this, or approaching to this, drawn by any heathen writer before Christ ? We think not. Philo- sophy and magic, the search after knowledge and the search after power, were familiar to men who had never heard of Christianity ; but this ideal is different from either, and from both of them united. Those who affirm that Philostratus never thought of the Christian history in his work, say that he intended Apollonius as a rival to Pythagoras. But by whom was Pythagoras portrayed as this super- human ideal ? Not certainly by any writer of the centuries before Christ. Even Plutarch (Numa, c. viii.) does not set him up as an ideal exemplar. Is it possible that the age of Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so tradi- tional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere motion have gone off into this new and un- heard-of line? — unheard of, that is, unless, as we must, we suppose it to have been borrowed APOSTOLIC FATHERS from Christianity. The Christians were not then by any means an unknown sect ; so well known were they that Alexander Severus (with a singular parallelism to the supposed conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ with Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius himself, among his household gods. Secondly, the resemblance to the Gospel histories is in par- ticular instances very broad indeed. Tlie miraculous birth of Proteus, and the circum- stances attending it; the healing of demoni- acal possessions (was the idea of such posses- sions in any way familiar to the Greeks ?) ; the raising of the dead ; the appearance of Apollonius to two of his disciples after his deUverance from Domitian ; his ascent to heaven, and appearance after his death, — these are points of similarity that cannot be evaded : and, taken together with the central idea of the book, they seem to imply that Philostratus consciously borrowed from the Gospels. It should be noticed that the very striking resemblances between the biography of Apollonius and the Gospels are resem- blances in externals ; the inner spirit is entirely different : in the one we find the self-contained philosophic spirit, striking even amid all the rhetoric and tawdry marvels with which Philostratus has dressed it ; in the other, the spirit of the insufhciency of self. Those who wish to examine the whole question respecting Apollonius should consult Baur, op. cit. ; Kayser's Philostratus ; Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen ; and the writers noticed above. [j.r.m.] Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term.— The adjective Apostolicus (ano. iv. 6S3) ; hut a more authentic tradition ascribes it to the trother of Pius, who was bp. of Rome a little t >re the middle of Jiid cent. {Canon. Murat. 58, ed. Tregelles ; sec pseudo-Tertull. /tn. adv. Marc. iii. 294, in TcrtuU. Of>. ii. .'. ed. Oehlcr). Thus again the claim of i.'ias to be considered an Apostolic Father ;s on the supposition that he was a disciple 1 St. John the Evangelist, as Irenaous .ipparently imagines (Haer. v. 33, § 4) ; but I Eusebius says that Irenaeus was mistaken, and that the teacher of Papias was not the Apostle St. John, but the presbyter of the same name (H. E. iii. 30). Again, there is some uncertainty about the Epistle to Diogneius. Its claim is founded on an ex- pression which occurs in § 11, and which has been interpreted literally as implying that the writer was a personal disciple of one or other of the Apostles. But in the first place the context shews that tliis literal interpreta- tion is out of place, and the passage must be explained as follows : " I do not make any i strange statements nor indulge in unreason- able questionings, but having learnt my lessons from the .\postles (lit. having become a disciple of Ajiostlcs), I stand forward as a teacher of the nations " ; and secondly, this is no part of the Ep. to Diognettts proper (§§ i-io), but belongs to a later writing, which has been accidentally attached to the Epistle, owing to the loss of some leaves in the MS. This latter fact is conclusive. If therefore the Epistle has any title to a place among the Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by internal evidence ; and though the internal character suggests an early date, perhaps as early as about a.d. 117 (see Westcott, Canon, P- 79), ypt there is no hint of any historical connexion between the writer' and the Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Ep. of Bar- nabas occupies an unique position. If the writer had been the companion of St. Paul who bore that name, then ho would more properly be styled, not an " apostolic man," as he is designated by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, ii. 20, p. 489, 6 aTroaroXinds IJaprd/iasX but an " apostle," as the same Clement else- where styles him {Strom, ii. 6, p. 445 ; ii. 7, f>. 447), in accordance with St. Luke's language Acts xiv. 14). But if the writer be not the Apostle Barnabas, then we have no evidence of any personal relations with the Apostles, though such is not impossible, as the Epistle must have been written at some date between the age of Vespasian and that of Nerva. Three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable ground for hesitation. All the genuine writings of these three Apostolic Fathers arc epistolary in form, modelled more or less after the pattern of the Canonical Ei)istles, especially those of St. Paul, and called forth by pressing temporary needs. In no case is any literary motive prominent. A famous teacher writes in the name of the c )mmunity over which he pre- sides to quell the dissensions of a distant but friendly church. An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom pours out a few parting words of exhortation to the Christian brother- hoods with whom he is brought in contact i APOSTOLIC FATHERS .•^7 during his journey. .\ bishop of a loading church, having occasion to send a parrel to another brotherhood at a distance, takes the opjiortunity of writing, in answer to their solicitations, a few plain words of advice and instruction. Such is the simple account of the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp respectively. The same forna is preserved in the Ep. of Barnabas and the letter to Diognctus. But the spirit is somewhat different. They are rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, the aim of the one being polemical, of the other apologetic. Herein they resemble Hebrews more than the ICpp. of St. Paul. " The Apostolic Fathers," says de Prcs- sense, " are not great writers,' but great characters" {Trois Premiers Si^cles, ii. 384). Their stylo is loose ; there is a want of ar- rangement in the topics, and an absence of system in their teaching. On the one hand they present a marked contrast to the depth and clearness of conception with which the several N.T. writers place before us different aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title to a special inspiration is established. On the other, they lack the scientific spirit which distinguished the Fathers of the 4th and 5th cents., and which enabled them to formulate the doctrines of the faith as a bulwark against unbridled speculation. But though they are deficient in distinctness of conrejition and power of exposition, "this inferiority" to the later Fathers " is amply compensated by a certain naivete and simplicity which forms the charm of their letters. If they have not the precision of the scientific spirit, they are free from its narrowness." There is a breadth of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of per- sonal responsibility, a fervour of Christian devotion, which is the noblest testimony to the influence of the Gospel on characters obviously very diverse, and which will always command for their writings a resiicTdom has crushed all human passion ; the unbroken constancy of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent in maintaining the faith once delivered to the saints, — these are lessons which can never become antiquated or lose their value. Their Relation to the Apostolic Teaching and to the Canonical Scriptures. — Of the respective provinces of the Apostolic Fathers, we may say that Clement co-ordinates the different elements of Christian teaching as left by the Apostles ; and Ignatius consolidates the structure of ecclesiastical polity, as sketched out by them ; while for Polycarp, whose active career was just begiiming as theirs ended, and who lived on f(jr more than half a century after their deaths, was reserved the task of handing down unimpaired to a later generation the Apostolic doctrine and order thus co-ordinated and cons(jlidated by his elder contemporaries — a task for which he was eminently fitted by his passive and receptive character. The writings of these three Fathers lie well 38 APOSTOLIC FATHERS within the main stream of Catholic teaching. They are the proper link between the Canon- ical Scriptures and the church Fathers of the succeeding ages. They recognize all the different elements of the Apostolic teaching, though combining them in different propor- tions. " They prove that Christianity was Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety of forms in one faith. They shew that the great facts of the Gospel narrative, and the substance of the Apostolic letters, formed the basis and moulded the expression of the common creed " (Westcott, Canon, p. 55). But when we turn to the other writings for which a place among the Apostolic Fathers has been claimed, the case is different. Though the writers are all apparently within the pale of the church, yet there is a tendency to that one-sided exaggeration — either in the direc- tion of Judaisms or the opposite — which stands on the very verge of heresy. In the Ep. of Barnabas and in the letter to Diognetus, the repulsion from Judaism is so violent, that one step further would have carried the writers into Gnostic or Marcionite dualism. On the other hand, in the Shepherd of Hermas, and possibly in the Expositions of Papias (for in this instance the inferences drawn from a few scanty fragments must be precarious), the sympathy with the Old Dis- pensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive features of the Gospel are darkened by the shadow of the Law thus projected upon them. In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both extremes are avoided. For the relation of these \vriters to the Canonical Scriptures the reader is referred to the thorough investigation in Westcott's Hist, of the Canon, pp. 19-55. It will be sufficient here to state the more important results: (i) The Apostolic Fathers do not, as a rule, quote by name the canonical writings of the N.T. But (2), though (with exceptions) the books of the N.T. are not quoted by name, fragments of most of the canonical Epistles lie embedded in the writings of these Fathers, whose language is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction. In like manner the facts of the Gospel history are referred to, and the words of our Lord given, though for the most part not as direct quotations. For (3) there is no decisive evidence that these Fathers recognized a Canon of the N.T., as a distinctly defined body of writings ; though Barnabas once introduces our Lord's words as recorded in Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14, with the usual formula of Scriptural citation, " As it is written (ws y^ypatrTaL)." But (4), on the other hand, they assign a special and pre- eminent authority to the Apostles which they distinctly disclaim for themselves. This is the case with Clement (§§ 5, 7) and Ignatius (Rom. 4), speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul ; and with Polycarp f§ 3), speaking of St. Paul — the only Apostles that are mentioned by name in these writings. (5) Lastly, though the language of the Canonical Gospels is frequently not quoted word for word, yet there is no distinct allusion to any apocryphal narrative. [l.] The standard work on the Apostolic Fathers is by the writer of the above article, the late bp. Lightfoot. His work on the AQUILA principal subject, in five 8vo volumes, in- cludes Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. But after his death a single vol. was pub. containing re- vised texts of all the Apostolic Fathers, with short introductions and Eng. translations. Apostolici, one of the names adopted by an ascetic sect in Phrygia, Cihcia, and Pamphylia. Their leading principle seems to have been the rejection of private property. They are also said to have resembled Tatian, the Encratites, and the " Cathari " (Novatian- ists), in that they refused to admit offenders to communion, and condemned marriage. They appealed chiefly to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and of Thomas. They entitled them- selves Apotactiri, i.e. " Renuntiants." What i little is recorded about them, beyond the name, . we owe to Epiphanius (Haer. Ixi. 506-513), who apparently knew them only by vague oral report. Their place in his treatise would i naturally assign them to the 3rd cent. ; and i they evidently had not ceased to exist in the 4th. " Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotac- tites," described together as " an offshoot of ' the Marcionites," are associated with Nova- tianists by Basil in a letter answering queries from Amphilochius of Iconium (cxcix. can. 47 ; cf. clxxxviii. can. i), written in 375, when Epiphanius had begun and not completed his work. A law of Theodosius against the Manicheans in 381 (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 7 ; cf. II an. 383) alleges that some of these lieretics endeavoured to evade the existing severe legislation by calling themselves " Encratites, Apotactites, Hydroparastatae, or Saccophori." Any true historical connexion, however, between the Apostolici and either the Mar- cionists or the Manicheans is highly improb- able, [h.] Apphianus, or Appianus, or Amphianus, M., a son of rich parents at " Pagae " (pro- bably Araxas) in Lycia, educated in the schools of Berytus, who being not twenty years old interrupted the governor at Caesarea when sacrificing, by an exhortation to desist from idolatry, and was, after horrible tortures — e.g. by his feet being wrapped in a tunica molesla of flax steeped in oil and set on fire — finally martyred by drowning, April 11, 306 (Eus. de Mart. Palaest. iv. ; Syriac Acta, in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 189 seq.). [a.w.h.] Aquila (\'^Kv\as), the author of a translation of the O.T. into Greek, which was held in much esteem by the Jews and was reproduced by Origen in the third column of the Hexapla, seems to have belonged to the earlier half of 2nd cent. Little is known regarding his per- sonal history beyond the fact that he was, like the Aquila associated with St. Paul, a native of Pontus, and probably, according to the more definite tradition, of Sinope. We learn also from Irenaeus, in whom we find the earliest mention of him (adv. Haer. iii. 24), that he was a proselyte to the Jewish faith — a statement confirmed by Eusebius (Demonst. Evang. vii. i : irpoariXvTOi oe b 'AkvXus i)v ov (pvacL 'lovoaTo^), Jerome (Ep. ad Painmach. 0pp. iv. 2, p. 255), and other Fathers, as well as by the Jerusalem Talmud (Megill. f. 71, c. 3 ; Kiddush. f. 59, c. i, where there can be little doubt that the Akilas referred to is to be identified with Aquila). ARCHELAUS ■III thi< rircmnstancc he is frequently called V.iuila the proselyte." The object of Aqiiila was to furnish a inslation on which the Jews could relv as more accurate rendering of the Hebrew h,m that of the Septuapint, which not onlv \,\s in many instances loose and incorrect r Mn the first, but had also in the course f four centuries undergone change and eruption. With this view he made his crsion strictly literal, striving to provide a ;rcek equivalent for everv Hebrew word iiul particle, in frequent disregard of the ules of grammar and of idiom, and with the •esult of often rendering his meaning hardly ntelligible to those who were not acquainted vith Hebrew (as in Job xxx. i, Kal i'vi> '~i^\ained new forms (as in !'*. xxi. i.^. SwdcTTaiBaa-av SieS-nfJ-aTtaavrd fte Ts. cxviii. lo, fi^i dyvorj,uaTlrobably (cf. Phot. Cod. 85) a certain Hegemonius. The disputation and Archelaus himself seem to be fictitious ; but the work affords valuable information respecting the Manichean system (cf. Bardcnhewer, 1008, pp. 208-260). [h.w.I Arethas, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadoria, and Andreas, an earlier archbp. of the same see, are so intimately associated as commentators on the Book of Revelation, and so little known otherwise, that thev may most fitly be noticed together. We have no direct in- formation regarding either, beyond the bare fact of their common connexion with the see of Caesarea. The dates at which they flour- ished can only be inferred approximately, and somewhat vaguely, from incidental notices of persons or of events in their writings. The question has been most fully discussed by Rettig (Die Zeugui'ise des .A ndreas und Arethas . . . in the Theol. Studicn und Kritiken for i'*^.^!. PP- 734 seq.) ; and his conclusions have been very generally accepted. He has shewn by enumerating the succession of bishops in Caesarea that the last 30 or 40 years of the 5th cent, may be assigned to Andreas and .\rethas ; and the absence of any reference to later events favours the belief that the work was prepared towards the close of the 5th. or in the earlier part of the 6th, cent. The commentary of Andreas on the .\po- calypse (entitled 'YjppL-r^vda fi's ttjc ' \voKa\x<\piv^ seems to have been the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church. The statement of R. Simon, Fabricius, Rosen- miiller, and others, that the work belongs to the class of Catenae, is not borne out either by its form or by the language of the Preface, which simply means that he made use of the materials which he found in the early writers whom he names, and occasionally quoted their expressions (irap' Siv 7]/j.fh woWas Xa^ovres d(popfjids . ■ . Kaflujs Iv TL/». ( \pr. iii. p. 119. If Maximus's information be correct, Clement's belief that St. Luke was the writer of the Dialogue shews at least that it must have been commonly assigned to a \ rry early date (Rmith, Rel. Sac. i. cii-ioq ; ll.irnack,' .-!//. Chr. Lit. i. 92 95-97). [s.M.] Arius ( Aptios) the heresiarch was born in Africa — the locality is disputed — in a.d. 256. l:i his early days he was a pupil of Lucian of Aiitioch, a celebrated Christian teacher, and a martyr for the faith. By some Arius is said ti have derived his heresy from Lucian (see l.iciAN-rs, 12). This statement is made in a letter written by Alexander, bp. of Alex- I andria. to bp. Alexander of Constantinople. The object of the letter is to complain of ! the errors .\rius was then diffusing. The , writer says of Lucian that he lived for many years out of communion with three : bishops (Theod. Eccl. Hist. i. 4). But the ' charge is somewhat vague in itself; it is un- \ supported by other authority, and Alexander's ' language, like that of most controversialists in past days, is not a little violent. Moreover, Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander him- self, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards promulgated by Arius, but is accused generally — rather ad invidiam, it would seem — of heretical tendencies. The question of the exact nature of the relation between the Father ' and the Son had been raised some 50 years before the Nicene controversy arose. Biit the discussion of it at that time had been in- I sufficient and unsatisfying. So far as the I earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favour of the opinions afterwards held bv Arius. But so unsatisfactory was that settlement that the reopening of the question sooner or later was practically unavoidable, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alex- andria. The reason of the deposition of Paul of Samosata in a.d. 269 was his agreement with those who had used the word ofiooi'ffiot to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at I that time thought to have a Sabellian ten- j dency, though, as events shewed, this was on account of its scope not having been satis- factorily defined. In the discussion which I then arose on the question, Dionysius, bp. of I Alexandria, had used much the same language I as Arius afterwards held, and a c )rrcsp()iulence I is extant in wliich Dionysius of Rome blames I his brother of Alexandria for using such lan- guage. Dionysius of Alexandria withdrew, , or perhaps rather explained (see .-Vthan. de I Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 25), the expressions com- Clained of, and posterity has been inclined to lame him for vacillation. Whether this accu- ( sation be just or not, it is quite clear that the position in which a question of such supreme importance was left by the action of Dionysius ARIUS 41 could only postpone the controversy, and that its resumption was therefore only a question of time. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had ex- pressed its disapproval of the word o^oovaiotin one sense. The bp. (.Alexander) of Alexandria (c. 320) undertook its defence in another. The character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents. Alexander, bp. of .Alexandria, in a letter to Alexander of Con- j stantinople, describes it in very unfavourable j terms. But in those days it was customary , to mingle personal attacks with religious con- troversies. Arius appears to have been a man of ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. It has been stated that his action was largely the result of jealousy on account of his having been a candidate for the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, when Alexander was elected to it. But the best early authorities arc doubtful on the point. He had no doubt a disproportionate number of female supporters, but there seems no ground for the insinuation of Alexander of Alexandria, in the above-mentioned letter, that these women were of loose morals. There appears, however, more foundation for the charge that -Arius allowed the songs or odes contained in the book called Thalcia — which he wrote after his first condenmation, in order to popularize his doctrine — to be set to tunes which had gross and infamous associa- tions. Nor can he be acquitted of something like a personal canvass of the Christian popu- lation in and around Alexandria in order to further his views. The patriarch of Alexandria has also been the subject of adverse criticism for his action against his subordinate. He too, like his pre- decessor Dionysius, has been charged with vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it is difficult to see how he could have acted otherwise than he did. The question, as we have seen, had been left unsettled two gener- ations previously, or, if in any sense it could be said to have been settled, it had been settled in favour of the opponents of the Homoousion. Therefore Alexander allowed the contro\ersy to go on until he felt that it was becoming dangerous to the peace of the church. Then he called a council of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. They de- cided against Arius. Alexander then delayed no longer. He acted with resolution as well as promptitude, deposed Arius from his office, and repelled both him and his supporters from communion. Then he wrote (the letters are extant) to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomcdia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger to the Christian church arising from his heresy. It is clear, from Arius's own letter (also extant) to Eusebius of Nicomcdia, that Alexander's charges against Arius were in no way unfair. The question, as the event has shewn, was a vital one, and plainly called for an authoritative decision. Arius taught : (i) that the Logos and the Father were not of the same oiVi'a (essence) ; (2) that the Son was a created being (Krtfffia or Troirj/xa) ; and (3) that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them 42 ARIUS and before all time, there was — Arius refused to use such terms as XP^^°^ or aiwv — when He did not exist. The subsequent controversy shews that the absence of the words xp^^os or alcbv was a mere evasion, and that when de- fending himself he argued in just the same manner as though he had used those words. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had an °-PXV (beginning) ; yet not only Athanasius, but Origen before him, had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that, to use Corner's words {Person of Christ, ii. 115), "the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act " ; i.e. the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. Arius was obviously perplexed by this doc- trine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself (see above), had studied under Lucian, in the words, deiyevvri^ ecrriv ; dyevvTjToyevrji icrrlv. It is unquestionably to be lamented that so much stress should have been laid in the contro- versy on words which, when used, not popu- larly, but in metaphysical discussions, had a tendency to confound the eternal generation of the Son with the purely physical process of the generation of men and animals. The latter is a single act, performed at a definite moment in time. The former is a mysterious, eternal pr'^cess, for ever going on. Had the defenders of the Nicene doctrine made more general use of the terra communication of Being, or Essence, they would have made it clearer that they were referring to a continual and unchangeable relation between the First and Second Persons in the Trinity, which bore a very slight analogy indeed to the process which calls inferior creatures into existence. Moreover, Arius contended that the Son was unchangeable (ctrpeTrros). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language — on a subject which even Athanasius seems to have admitted to have been bevond his power thoroughlv to comprehend — he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. [See art. Arius, Followers of.] He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism [Sabellius], which practically represented the Logos as a sensuous emanation of the Godhead for the purpose of carrying out the work of salvation, or else as a purely subjective human concep- tion of certain aspects of the Divine Being — not as an eternal distinction subsisting objec- tively in the Godhead itself. Arius, while opposing the Sabellian view, was unable to see that his own view had a dangerous ten- dency to bring back Gnosticism, with its long catalogue of aeons. Macedgnics, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same light in which the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Yet Arius undoubtedly derived some support from the dangerous language of Origen, who had ventured to represent the Logos as a ARIUS bfvrepo^ (or Sevrepiiuv) Oeoi. Origen (see his de Principiis, I. ii. 6, 12) had also made use of expressions which favoured Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance tothe Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But it is not sufficiently remembered that the speculations of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work in theology, and that they were often hazarded in order to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why, in the Arian, as well as other controversies, the great authority of Origen is so frequently invoked b}' both sides. The Christian church had by this time become so powerful a force in the Roman world that Constantine, now sole emperor, found himself unable to keep aloof from the controversy. He was the less able to do so in that he had himself been brought up under Christian influences. [Constantine.1 He therefore sent the venerable Hosius, bp. of Cordova, a man who had suffered cruelly on behalf of his faith, on a mission to Egypt, with instructions to put an end, if possible, to the controversy. But as it continued to rage, Constantine took a step hitherto unprece- dented in Roman history. Republican Rome of course had her free institutions, and the Christian church had been accustomed to determine matters of faith and practice in her local assemblies. But anything like a council of delegates, summoned from all parts of the empire, had been hitherto unknown. Such an assembly Constantine determined to call together. All the secular dioceses into which the empire had been for some time divided, Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council. The majority of the bishops came from the East, but there was, nevertheless, an imposing display of men of various races and languages. Sylvester of Rome, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. The object of the council, it must be remembered, was not to pronounce what the church ought to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible what had been taught from the beginning. It was indeed a remarkable gathering. There was not only as good a representation of race and nationality as was possible under the circumstances, but the ability and intellect of the church were also well represented. There was Eusebius of Nicomedia, the astute poli- tician and man of the world. There was also the renowned Eusebius of Caesarea, a sound theologian, and perhaps the most well-in- formed, careful, impartial, and trustworthy ecclesiastical historian the church has ever possessed. Alexander, patriarch of Alexan- dria, was also a man of mark. And, young as he was, the great Athanasius was already a host in himself, from his clearness of insight into the deepest mysteries of our religion. And beside these there were men present who manifested the power of faith — the brave " confessors," as they were called, whose faces and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings they had undergone for their Master. Nor could any one object that it was a packed assembly. The emperor did his best to secure an honest selection and an honest decision. The council met (325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia, ARIUS ,T t Warpl were added after the words " be- gotten, not made." And the word ivavdpijnrr)- ffavTa, which means rather more than " made man," and implies an intimate association of the Godhead with the Manhood, was added ARIUS 43 after "was Incarnate" (i.e. n\M\v flesh — ; (xapKuO^vTa—a phrase which was felt to be insutVicient and even misleading by itself). The anathema which was also added embraces I those who deny that the Son and the Father were of one ovala or vir6eTan would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons. As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, it is clear that Constantine found some reason to suspect his sincerity, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pro- nounced on Arius. Philostorgius says that Secundus and Theonas predicted that this would happen when they themselves had been sentenced to banishment. Possibly expressions fell from them in the heat of argument which led Constantine to the conclusion that their submission was not genuine. It must be confessed that the Nicene settle- ment, though necessary in itself and satis- factory in the end, was at least premature. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, the election of Athanasius in his place was only secured in the face of violent opposition from the Arianizing faction. Soon after, Eusebius of Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after having written a diplomatic letter to the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after having made a somewhat disingenuous recantation. So astute a politician as the Nicomedian Eusebius was not long before he regained his influence with the emperor, and then began a series of intrigues which led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the staunchest adherents of Athana- sius, was the first victim. The question of heterodoxy was skilfully kept in the back- ground, and a number of false and odious personal charges were trumped up against him by men and women of abandoned lives. If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of the women aforesaid, when seized by a serious illness, retracted her accusation in a remark- ably sensational manner. But the other his- torians (Socrates and Sozomen) are reticent about the nature of the charges, and only tell us that Eustathius had been unfortunate enough to get involved in a controversy with Eusebius PamphiU (of Caesarea). Eusta- thius was at once ejected from his see, and was regarded by the emperor as having been the cause of the riot his expulsion excited among the people, with whom Eustathius was a favourite. Marcellus of Ancyra was the next victim. He had all along been the friend and champion of Athanasius. But unfor- tunately he was not at home in the thorny paths of metaph^'sical theology, and found it impossible to defend the Nicene decisions without falling into Sabellianism. There was no need, therefore, for the Arianizers to bring personal charges against him. Accordingly few, if any such, were brought. He was charged, and quite fairly, with Sabellianism. On this point Eusebius Pamphili came safely to ARIUS the front, and wrote strongly against Marcellus, while the latter sturdily defended himself. The actual condemnation of Marcellus was deferred till 336, and in the meantime Eusebius of Nicomedia had commenced proceedings against the only rival he really dreaded, Athanasius himself. He had, as we have seen, contrived the restoration of Arius to the emperor's favour by inducing the latter to write an insincere retractation, and when the emperor, deceived by this manoeuvre, laid his commands on Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded reasons of conscience against doing so. Then the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The accusations of treason against the emperor and the insinuations that the patriarch wished to set up an empire of his own against or above the supreme authority of the divine Augustus had certainly some effect on the mind of Constantine. Charges were made of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, worst of all in the emperor's eyes, of raising funds for treasonable objects. They were in- vestigated (if the scenes of violence and passion which took place can be termed an investiga- tion) at a synod of 150 bishops at Tyre (335). The triumphant vindication of himself by Athanasius at that council, the dramatic scenes with which that vindication, according to some historians, was accompanied, and the equally dramatic appeal from his accusers to Constantine himself in the streets of Con- stantinople (which all the accounts describe as having taken place), belong rather to the history of Athanasius than of Arius. [Athan- asius.] Suffice it to say that the bold and decisive action, backed by innocence, of the great archbishop only succeeded in deferring his fall. The synod of Tj're had already issued a condemnation while he was on his way to Constantinople in order to appeal to the emperor. The emperor, for the moment, was struck and touched by the appeal and by the commanding personality of Athan- asius. But Eusebius proved ultimately to be master of the situation. With consummate dexterity the wily tactician, with the aid of Theognis and Maris, his old associates, as well as of the arch-intriguers Ursacius and Valens, of whom we shall hear so much in the next article, contrived that the old charges of ecclesiastical offences should be dropped, and that fresh charges of interference with the secular affairs of the empire should be sub- stituted for them. Accordingly, Athanasius was now charged with detaining the corn which was ordered to be sent from Egypt to Constantinople. The artifice succeeded. Con- stantine was weary of the strife. His only object had been the settlement of the question. The shape which that settlement took was to him a secondary matter. He had, as he him- self tells us (see his letters to Alexander and Arius in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius Pamphili), a strong objection to idle and word- splitting discussions, private or public, and considered them unnecessary and unprofitable. The measures he had been persuaded to take at Nicaea had not produced the effect which he had expected from them. So, like other despots in a similar position, he turned fiercely ABtCS ■ ■n those who had induced him to adopt tlu-iii. riiat it was Atliaiiasiiis wlio had advocated the iiRMSiires whidi had so palpably failed needed no deiuonstratiou. So he was exiled to Trier ( rrcves), after a number of leading; bishops had been assembled at Constantinople to try him, and Alexander of Constantinople was ■ ■rdered to receive Arius back into church ..>minunion. But Ciod had otherwise or- dained. Alexander was in dire perplexity. He dared not disobey the command, neither dare he obey it. In his extremity lie asked the prayers of the orthodox that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The praver was, we must admit, a strange one. But even tiibbon records the incident as a fact, though he makes it the occasion for one of his characteristic gibes at Christianity and Christ- ians. Meanwhile, as the historian Socrates tells us, Arius was ordered to appear before the emperor, and asked whether he was willing to sign the Nicene decrees. He replied, without hesitation, that he was ready to do so. Asked whether he would confirm his signature by an oath, he agreed to do this also. This last fact Socrates declares {H. E. i. 38) that he had verified by an inspection of the imperial archives. The very day before the one ap- pointed for his readmission to communion, Arius died suddenly, and in a most remark- able manner. Whether his death can be described as a miracle or not may be dis- puted. It seems preferable to attribute it to natural causes. But that the event was one of the numerous occasions in history when we are compelled to recognize a Divine inter- position can hardly be doubted. The extra- ordinary occurrence made a vast impression throughout Christendom. The heresiarch had only been able to obtain the decree for readmission to communion by a feigned adherence to the Nicene symbol. His posi- tion was, therefore, in the eyes of Christendom one of gross and palpable deception — nothing less than an act of glaring and defiant impiety. Socrates tells us that in his time, a century afterwards, the place where he died was still pointed out. Athanasius himself describes the incident (d^ Morte Arii). There are there- fore few facts in history more fully attested. The tragic death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy. The sequel will be found in the next article. Bibliography. — (i) Ancient. The writings of Athanasius generally, especially his de In- carnatioue Verbi Dei and de Decretis Synodi Nicenae; the Vita Constantini of Eusebius Pamphili; and the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Of these the first is the best, though the documents cited at length by Theodoret are valuable. English translations of these authors, save of quite recent date, are by no means implicitly to be trusted, especially as to metaphysical terms. The ecclesiastical history of Philo- storgius, which would give us the Arian point of view, is unfortunately only known to us through a hostile epitome by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in 9th cent. (2) Of comparatively modern works the church histories of Neander and Gieseler ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 45 cont.iin very valuable informalii>ii, as does also Dorners learned and impartial treatise On the Person of Christ. Bp. Martenscn's History of Christian Doginatics is also valuable ; Ciibboii's Decline and Fall is useful in giving us the secular view of the period. Bp. Kaye's Council of Xicaca will be found worth reading. De Broglie's L'Eglise et I'Emf^ire romain au IV' sic-cle is full of information. Newman's .irians of the Fourth Century is marred by some prejudices and prept)Ssessions. Dean Stanley's acct)unt of the Nicene council in his Eastern Church will be found more picturesque than accurate. Prof. Gwatkin's Studies of Arian^ ism is, as its title implies, rather a series of sketches than a detailed history, but contains a vast amount of original research, illuminated by flashes of insight into the char- acters and motives of the principal actors in the controversy, and gives an exhaustive bib liography. His Arian Controversy is a brief summary for popular use. There is a valuable article in Texts and Studies, vol. vii. (1901), by Mr. Bethune Baker on "The Meaning of Homo- ousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed." His Introduction to the Early Hist, of Christian Doctrine (1903) will be found useful, as will the art. " Arianism" in Hastings's Encyd. of Re- ligion and Ethics, i. (1908). Harnack, Wj's/. 0/ Dogma (Hng. trans. 1894-1899), gives the modern C.erman view. [j-J-L.] Arius, Followers of. After the deaths of Arius and Constantine we enter on a tangled web of controversy which lasted from a.d. 336 to 381, when the question was finally decided by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed at the council of Constantinople. This period of confusion is due to the change of conditions under which the contest was carried on. For a time the division of the empire between three Augusti contributed an additional ele- ment of uncertainty to the conflict. Yet when the deaths of the j-ounger Constantine and his brother Constans left the whole empire for eleven years in the hands of Constantius, matters were scarcely less involved. Con- stantius, though by no means devoid of ability, as his success in maintaining his un- divided authority against such rebellions as those of Magnentius and Vetranio proves, was far inferior to his father in clearness of vision and breadth of aim. The great Constantine himself was not altogether inaccessible to flattery and family influences. His sister Constantia is credited with having prevailed upon him to allow Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius to return from exile. But her influence was still more strongly felt in the next reign, and after the death of the astute and able Eusebius of Nicomedia, mere intriguers, such as Ursacius and Valens, and even the worth- less eunuchs about the court, were able to persuade the emperor into unreasonable and tortuous courses, of which jealousy of the great Athanasius formed in reality the secret motive. Amid all the distractions of the time, three main stages may be marked in the progress of the controversy. The first con- sisted of the six years between the death of Constantine and the council of Sardica (343)- During this period the attitude of all the various parties save those who adhered to the Nicene symbol is most perplexing, and 46 ARiUS, FOLLOWERS OF the changes of opinion most bewildering. Court intrigue occupies a prominent place in the history. Yet it gradually became clear, as far as tlie march of opinion was concerned, that the West was irrevocably attached to the views of Athanasius, while in the East opinion was divided and variable, and the court influence grew more decisive on the progress of events in proportion as the power of Constantius increased. The second period was that between the councils of Sardica and Ariminum (Rimini, in Italy) in 359, during which opinion was gradually setthng down into three distinct forms, which may be roughly de- scribed as the orthodox, the semi-Arian, and the Arian view. The last period, that between 359 and 3S1, is that during which Homoean- ism and Anomoeanism (see below) became gradually discredited, while Homoiousians and orthodox approximated by degrees, until the final victory of the Nicene symbol at Con- stantinople. The ferment of opinion may be gauged by the fact that the historian Socrates gives no less than ten forms of creed — eleven if we count that presented at Nicaea by Euse- bius of Caesarea — which were produced at various councils in hope of settling the con- troversy. But the Nicenes remained firmly attached to the creed of Nicaea, while their opponents were divided into three groups — the Anomoeans, or Arians proper, who taught the unlikeness of the nature of the Son to that of the Father ; the Homoeans, who believed the Son's nature to bear only a general resem- blance to that of the Father; and the Homoi- ousians, who believed in the similarity (but not the identity) of the essence of the Son to that of the Father. These last are also called semi-Arians. The first important step in the history of the controversy after the death of Arius was the return of Athanasius to his diocese (337) permitted by Constantine II., in whose division of the empire Egypt lay. But he was not suffered to remain long un- molested. In 340 Constantine II. died, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest of Athan- asius's antagonists, contrived to get himself removed to Constantinople after the death of the bishop, Alexander. His proximity to the emperor secured to him the leading influence in affairs ecclesiastical. The orthodox party had elected Paul as their bishop, but Eusebius contrived to get this election annulled, and to secure the vacant post for himself. He " left no stone unturned," as the historian Socrates puts it, to overthrow one whom he had long regarded as a rival. A council was assembled at Antioch (33S-339), in which the old charges were revived against Athanasius, and which confirmed his sentence of deposi- tion from his see. Athanasius was expelled in the spring of 339 ; and after a third Eusebius (afterwards bp. of Emesa), a man of principle and character, had declined to take his place, one Gregory was appointed, who speedily became unpopular in consequence of his violence and cruelty. Eusebius Paraphili of Caesarea, who would undoubtedly, had he survived, have been a moderating force, died about this time, and was succeeded hy Acacius, who played a prominent part in the sub- sequent proceedings, but lacked the special ARlUS, FOLLOWERS OF knowledge of Church history, as well as the experience and judgment, of his celebrated predecessor. Athanasius fled to Rome, and thus brought its bishop Julius on the scene. Julius acted with spirit and discretion. He summoned a synod of 50 bishops of the West, who annulled the deposition of Athanasius, and acquitted him of all the charges against him. He further trans- mitted to Antioch a strong remonstrance against the inconsistency and unfairness of the proceedings at the council held there. The Eastern bishops, however, were not to be deterred from their course by his representa- tions. At the council held at the dedication (encaenia) of a church at Antioch in 341, the sentence on Athanasius was confirmed, and after the rejection of a creed of distinctly Arian tendencies, a new creed, either com- posed by Lucian the Martyr or by his disciple Asterius, was brought forward as a substitute for the symbol of Nicaea. It rejected the expression bixoovcriov, but it as emphatically rejected Arianism by declaring the Son to be unchangeable and unalterable, and by adding that He was " the Image of the essence, the power, the will, and the glory of the Father." But Eusebius had not thrown over the symbol of Nicaea for such a halting sub- stitute as this. On the other hand, Athan- asius did not fail to point out that the language of the creed of Lucian was not more that of Scripture than was the language of the creed of Nicaea. The court party, whose object was simply to produce a formula which would, as they thought, meet. the emperor's views by putting a stop to controversy, endeavoured to force another creed on the council, but in vain. This additional creed was a compromise pure and simple, enshrining no truth, although in form corresponding as nearly to the Nicene formula as possible. Its supporters then put the document into the hands of Constans, emperor of the West, who had demanded the assembling of another general council. The West had been roused by the proceedings at Antioch, and Constantius, now engaged in a war with Persia, dared not refuse. The able leader of the dissentients, however, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was now dead, and the leader- ship had fallen into the hands of Ursacius and Valens, who were mere opportunists. To their dismay and that of their party, it was settled that the council should be held at Sardica, in Dacia, just within the limits of the Western empire. Thither, in 343, the de- puties repaired. But the courtiers perceived that there was no chance whatever of forcing their views upon a phalanx consisting, as it is now thought, of about 100 Western bishops devoted to the decisions of Nicaea. So they left Sardica in haste, and betook themselves to Philippopolis, a city just across the Eastern border. There, after declaring that the de- crees of one council cannot be revised by another, they began inconsistently to revise the decrees of former councils, and to hurl charges against the venerated Fathers of the West, Hosius and Juhus. The Westerns at Sardica, meanwhile, had once more acquitted Athanasius and his alhes, and had rejected the Eastern formulae, as leaning to the Gnostic doctrine of successive emanations from the ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP source of all being. Tho proceedings at Fhiiippopulis and the outrageous conduct of Stephen, then patriarch of Antioch, gave offence even in the East, and the decision of : the Western bishops to hold no communion I with their Eastern brethren while the existing state of things lasted produced a reaction. j Another council was held at Antioch, and a ' new and more conciliatory creed, usually I called naKfidcTTixoi, from its exceeding length, ! was substituted for the Lucianic document. As Constans pressed for the restoration of Athanasius, and Constantius had the war with Persia still on hand, the latter gave way, the more readily because Gregory the intruder was now dead (345). Constantius summoned Athanasius to his presence, and after a friendly interview dismissed him, and wrote three letters, one to the bishops and clergy in Egypt, one to the laity, and one to the governors of provinces, explaining that it was his will that Athanasius should be allowed to return in peace to his flock. But when he demanded of Athanasius that he should allow the use of one church to the Arians in Alex- andria, the latter preferred a request in his turn that the same thing should be done in cities where the Arians were in possession — a request which Constantius did not deem it prudent to grant. Athanasius therefore, unfettered by conditions, returned (346) to Alexandria, and the people, wearied of Arian violence and cruelty, received him with the warmest demonstrations of joy. j Peace was thus restored for the moment, but it endured only so long as Constantius was occupied with foreign war and intestine strife. It is noteworthy that the restless intriguers, Ursacius and Valens, found it prudent just at present to repair to Rome and make friends with Julius and the West. Socrates {H. E. ii. 37) remarks on their dis- position to identify themselves with the 1 strongest side. But permanent peace was I impossible until the questions at issue had ; been fully threshed out. As soon as Constans (350) was dead, and Magnentius, the usurper, defeated and slain (353), the strife recom- ! menced. For ten years Athanasius had , remained undisturbed at Alexandria, but I premonitory signs of the eruption which I was soon to burst forth had long been dis- 1 cernible. On the one hand the Easterns were beginning to substitute the semi- Arian doctrine ' of the likeness {o/xoioixnos) of the Son to the I Father for the vaguer conception of the ■ more moderate Arians of the earlier period. : On the other hand, the wnlikeness of the ' Son to the Father was more boldly and de- fiantly pressed by the holders of that doctrine, and by degrees a sect, which almost reducecl I Christ to the level of a mere man, appeared ' on the scene. The chief exponents of this ! doctrine were Aetius and Euzoius. The i Anomoeans now began to separate themselves ! more definitely from the orthodox. All this was not without its effect on Constantius, whose sole object, like that of most poli- ticians, was to avoid dissensions. When the tide turned, Ursacius and Valens were ready, as usual, with suggestions. But he could not at once take the steps they urged. New wars confronted him, and the attitude of the West ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 47 was decidedly disijuii tiiij;. Tlu> Western church had found a ntw champion in Hilaryof Poictiers (HilariusPictavensis), wlu)se ability, learning, and high character were recognized by his own contemiioraries. Con- stantius shewed his sense of his abilities by exiling liini, as well as l.iberius, bp. of Rome, who had succeeded Julius (355). Early in 356 the imperial troops burst into the cathedral at Alexandria to seize Athanasius, who was at prayer with his flock. It was night, and Athanasius almost miraculously escaped in the tumult, and remained secreted for some time. From his undiscovered re- treat he issued numerous letters and treatises, by which he kept up the courage of his adherents. His Arian successor, one George, did not venture to set foot in Alexandria till a year after the departure of Athanasius, and his atrocious cruelties soon made him hated as well as feared by the populace. Meanwhile the court intriguers resumed their activity. Sirmium, in Slavonia, between the Save and the Drave, now takes the place of Antioch in the matter of creed-making. A creed had already been issued thence in 351 against Sabellianism. In the latter part of 357 the emperor was in residence there, and Ursacius and Valens naturally took the oppor- tunity of renewing their mischievous activity. A second creed was promulgated there, in which the difference between the Father and the Son was strongly insisted upon ; the Father and the Son were declared to be two Persons {wpdauwa), and the use of the words ovala and inroffTacis, as applied to God's nature, was condemned, as not warranted by Scripture. The intriguers no doubt imag- ined that, as the supporters of the Nicene formula were in exile, they could give no further trouble, and that the line of least resistance would be to come to an arrangement with the Arian (Anomocan) party. But events proved them utterly wrong. The re- sult was just the opposite : to convert the moderates into a distinctly semi-Arian party, laying especial stress on the likeness of tlie Son's essence (biJ^oiovaiov) to that of the Father, instead of minimizing the likeness, as the Homoeans had done. The Homoiousians thus began to lean to the orthodox side, while the Homoeans inclined more and more to those who denied even the likeness of the Son's essence to that of the Father. Hilary now (359) intervened with his de Synodis, in which he reviewed the action of previous councils, and defended the Nicene Creed, yet in such a way as he thought best calculated to win back the semi-Arians (or Homoiousians) to the orthodox camp. This treatise marks the stage in the controversy in which semi- Arianism began definitely to separate itself from its doubtful allies, and to draw towards union with the orthodox party. Hilary, it may be added, admits the force of scmie semi- Arian objections to the word bfxoovauiv, and suggests certain express limitations of its meaning. Two other creeds of considerable length, one of them provided with innumerable anathemas, were draw^n up at Sirmium. The last of these, commonly known as the dated creed (359), was ridiculed by .•\tlianasius for 48 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF its pompous opening, and for its assumption that the Catholic faith had, at the date given, been proclaimed for the first time. It is clear, he adds, from their own confession, that theirs is a new faith, not the old one. We now enter upon the last stage of the con- troversy. It is marked by the first attempt to make a distinction between ovaia and inroaraais — terms which had hitherto been regarded as svnonymous — and to use the former as in- dicating the nature which is common to beings of the same order, while the latter was used to express the diversities between these pos- sessors of a common nature. The word ouj-ia was used to indicate the Divine Nature, while VTroj-TaaLS was henceforth used by the Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It should, however, be observed that substantia remained the Latin equivalent of ovaia.) The first to press this use of language was Basil of Ancyra, at a council he had called to protest against the proceedings at Sirmium. He defends the new use of the word vwdcTTaais in an able minute he issued, criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by pointing out that a word was needed — and it must be neither ovcria nor apxv — to denote the underlying and definitely existing {virapxova-as) distinctions {idLOTjjras) of the Persons (irpocruj- TTWv) ; and he acutely remarks that if ocaia was a term not to be found in Scripture, the Godhead was indicated there by the words 6 wf. In the end, this new and more careful use of words completely revolutionized the situa- tion. Henceforth the semi- Arians as a body not only laboured for an understanding with the orthodox, but also drew still more markedly apart from the Homoeans and Anomoeans. The calling of a new council in the same year at Rimini (Ariminum) in Italy brought these new tendencies very plainly to light. Constantius, finding it impossible to lay down a common basis for action between the East and the West, commanded the Eastern bishops to meet at Seleucia in Cilicia, a mountain fortress near the sea. Sozomen tells us that the reason for calling this council was the growing influence of Anomoeanism through the in- fluence of Aetius. The Western bishops, who numbered more than 200, had no scruples in the matter. They boldly deposed Ursacius and Valens, who had been sent to bring them to submission, and as boldly reaffirmed the Nicene symbol, and they sent a deputation of 20 bishops to the emperor to defend their action. He was, however, (or pretended to be) too busy to see them. The Easterns were still inclined to hesitate. The semi- Arian majority desired to accept the Nicene Creed, with the omission of the obnoxious ofj.oova-Lov. The Homoeans, under the leader- ship of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, condemned the expressions 6iJ.ooi'taiov and ofxaLouffiov , but anathematized the expression a.v6/j.oiov. " The Acacian [Homoean] party " (Socr. H. E. ii. 40) "affirmed that the Son was like the Father as respected His will only, and not in His substance or essence." And they tendered yet another creed in accordance with these views, which the council rejected, and deposed those who had tendered it. ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP Among those who were present at this council were men so diverse as the hated tyrant George of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poictiers, still exiled from his diocese. Meanwhile, Ur- sacius and Valens were engaged in the con- genial task of endeavouring to persuade the deputies from Ariminum to sign yet another creed at Nike in Thrace, in the hope, if some authorities are to be trusted, of making the world believe, from the similarity of names, that it was the renowned document promul- gated at the Nicene council. But this was surely an impossibility. The Nicene symbol was far too well known to the Christian world. .\thanasius now intervened from his retreat, and wrote his famous treatise de Synodis, in which he reviewed the creeds and acts of the various councils. But he assumed no non-possumus attitude. He had even seemed inclined, for a moment, to admit the ortho- doxy of the expression 6/j.oio6cnoy. But in this treatise he points out (c. 41) that though brass is like gold, tin like iron, and the dog like the wolf, yet they are of different natures, and no one could call the wolf the offspring of the dog. Nevertheless, he still endeavours to bridge over the gulf between himself and the semi-Arians. These two councils were the final turning- point of the controversy. It had clearly appeared that, whenever the Nicene defini- tions had been rejected, Anomoeanism, which was Arianism in a more definite philosophical shape, came once more to the front, and this fact was increasingly seen to point to the Nicene symbol as the only safe way out of the difiiculty. Henceforth the secular authority might retard, but it could not prevent, the victory of Athanasius and his followers. From this moment (see Socr. H. E. ii. 22) the Western churches definitely renounced com- munion with those of the East. The episode of Meletius of Antioch (not to be confounded with Meletius of Egypt^ shewed plainly which way events were tending. He had been elected patriarch of Antioch by the Homoean party. But in his inaugural speech he frankly confessed his Nicene leanings, and when a busy archdeacon rushed up and closed his mouth, he continued by gestures to affirm what he had previously affirmed by his voice. Meletius was promptly banished, but before the year (361) was over Constantius was dead. The action of his successor Julian, who had renounced Christianity, gave a still further impulse to the policy of conciliation. As between heathenism and Christianity, impar- tiality cannot certainly be predicated of him. But he was impartial enough in his hostility to Christians of all shades of opinion. This threw them, for the time, into one another's arms. True, when the external pressure was removed, the suspicions and jealousies, as is commonly the case, broke out afresh. But none the less had an impulse been given towards union which henceforth never ceased to be felt. The oppressor George had been expelled from Alexandria by a rising of the populace as early as 358. In 361, on his return to Alexandria, he was seized and murdered by his exasperated flock. The edict of Julian (361) permitting the return of the exiles left the way open to Athanasius to rejoin AMUS, FOLLOWERS OF his i>.-'>j)k-. He at ouce (362) sumiiionod a council, ill which Maccdonianism [Mackdo- Niusj, ail oflshoot from Arianisin which applied the same line of argument to the Holy Spirit which had previously been applied to the Son, was condemned as well as Arianisin. But Athanasius was wise and liberal enough to make overtures to the semi-Arians. Three men almost worthv to stand on a level with Athanasius himself had appeared among the Eastern bishops — men who were capable of negotiating on equal terms with that great and prescient theologian. These were Basil, afterwards bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, his brother Gregory, bp. of Nyssa, and the brilliant orator, poet, and thinker Grkgory OF Nazianzus, who was the intimate friend of both. These men had some opinions in common with the less extreme members of the semi-.Arian party, and were therefore quite ready to resume tlie work of conciliation which, as we have seen, had been attempted by Basil of Ancyra. .Athanasius, on his part, was ready to accept the distinction mentioned above between oi'tjia and iV6(JTa(riy, which had not been recognized at Nicaea. Before the death of Jovian {364), Aoacius of Caesarea, who cannot be acquitted of being an unworthy intriguer or at best a time-server, came for- ward to make his peace by accepting the Nicene formula. On the death of Jovian the empire was divided between Valentinian and Valens, the former taking the West, the latter the East, under his charge. Valen- tinian, as a man unacquainted with theology, was naturally influenced by the general opinion in the West, which had remained decisively Xicene. Valens as naturally fell under the influence of the Eastern bishops, and the time was not yet ripe for their accept- ance of the Xicene decision. The .Anomoeans were still a powerful party, and so deter- mined were they to enforce their views that they persecuted not only the orthodox but the semi-.\rians and Macedonians. When the semi-Arians, with the permission of Valen- tinian, held a council at Lampsacus in 364, its decisions were set aside by Valens, whose hand had already been heavy on the Homo- ousians, and who now exiled the semi-Arian bishops. Four years later he dealt equally harshly with the Macedonians, who were terrified into imploring the help of the ortho- dox West, and endeavoured to secure it by promising Liberius that they would receive the Nicene Creed. But the latter replied in a letter in which he declared that the faith depended on the acceptance of the words hypostasis (in the sense in which it is used in the Nicene formula) and homoousios. On the other hand, the dissensions which broke out between Eudoxius, patriarch of Antioch and afterwards of Constantinople and his Arian (or .\nomoean) allies, drove both him and Valens into the arms of the Homoeans, in whose possession most of the churches were. But the affairs of the empire fell into confusion in the incompetent hands of Valens, and the influence of the Arian and Homoean parties was steadily waning. Athanasius died •D 373, after a noteworthy attempt to cast his shield over his faithful supporter and friend Marcellus. The result was that Marcellus was ARNOBIUS 49 acquitted, but hisschonl disajipoarcd witli him (he died in 371), and the way lay clear for the conciliatory action of the three great Eastern leaders already mentioned. There was no theologian in Christendom who could withstand them. Among their opponents no concert reigned, but only confusion ; their ascendancy was founded on court intrigue and imperial violence. Sozomon (//. /•". vi. 6) tells us how Valentinian, while he stedfastly clung to orthodoxy, studiously refrained from har- assing those opposed to it, and notes with disapproval the different course taken by Valens. The cause of genuine, practical Christianity sufTered seriously under these divisions, intrigues, and acts of violence, and men of earnest and even indifferent minds were longing for peace. When Theodosius suc- ceeded Valens in 379 (Valentinian was already dead) there was no force strong enough among the heretical factions to resist the coalition between the semi-Arians and the Nicenes. The West was united in support of the latter, the strength and patience of the divided East were exhausted. A council of 150 bishops — all Easterns — assembled at Constantinople, and the weary 56 years of conflict and confusion terminated in the acceptance of the symbol * which, in the East and West, is repeated whenever Christians who profess the Catholic faith meet for communion with one another and their Lord. Arianism had no moral strength with which to resist persecution. But it still lingered among the Goths for some centuries. They were not an educated race, and Ulphilas, who converted them to Christianity, was a missionary rather than a theologian. And so it came to pass in the end that, so far as this vital doctrine of the Christian faith is concerned, " they all escaped safe to land." The bibliography of this period is much the same as has been given in art. Arius, only that the Life of Constantinc, by Euscbius Pam- phili, is of course no longer available. The de Synodis of Athanasius passes in review the various councils and their creeds, from the Encaenia at Antioch to the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. Various mono- graphs connected with the history of this period will be found mentioned by Prof. Gvvatkin in his Studies of Arianism, if the student wishes to go more deeply into the subject than is possible here. fj.j.L.] Arnobius, an eminent Latin apologist for Christianity. The records of his life are meagre and somewhat uncertain ; consisting in a few brief notices by St. Jerome, and another by Trithemius, aided by his own few incidental allusions to himself. The outbreak of the last great persecution (303-313) found Arnobius a professor of rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa. His reputation was high, and his pupils numerous and distinguished ; among them was Lactantius. Arnobius was a sincere pagan ; versed in schemes of philosophy ; but none the less an unhesitating and even abject idolator. He was, moreover, active as a lecturer in attacks upon Christianity. The sight, however, of • It ends, however, as far as the council of Nicaea is concerned, with the words, "And I believe in the Holy Ghost." 60 ARNOBIUS the martyrdoms which followed the edict of Nicomedia appears speedily to have touched him ; and a dream or vision (says St. Jerome) warned him to submit to Christ. He pre- sented himself to the church at Sicca ; but "they were afraid of him," and demanded from their late enemy some hostage for sincerity. The result was the composition of the Disputations against the Pagans ; whether in their present form or not. He was there- upon baptized, and (according to Trithemius) attained the rank of presbyter. Of his sub- sequent history we know nothing. Some doubt attaches to the exact date of the con- version of Arnobius and publication of his treatise. On the whole the evidence points to some date between 303 and 313 (Hieron. de Scr. Eccl. c. 79 ; id. in Chronicon Eusebii ; Trithemius, de Scr. Eccl. p. 10 a). The title of Arnobius's work usually appears as Disputationes adversus Gentes ; occasion- ally, adv. Nationes. It is divided into seven books of unequal length. The first two are devoted to the defence of Christianity, the remainder to the exposure of paganism. Of God, he speaks in the noblest and fullest language of adoration. His existence is assumed (i. 33) as a postulate in the argument. He is the First Cause ; the Father and Lord of things ; foundation of all ; author of only good ; unborn ; omnipresent ; infinite, incor- poreal ; passionless ; shrouded in light ; to be known only as the Ineffable (see especially 1. 31). Arnobius hesitates, however, over the details of creation ; thinking apparently that alike the human soul and the lower animals — insects and reptiles — are the work of some intermediate creator (ii. 36, 47). Of the Lord Jesus Christ he uses the most glowing language. As a man He is the supreme philosopher and teacher, both of nature and religion. But He is also God : " Deus re cert a : Deus, homo tamen natus ; Deus interiorum potentiarum ; Deus sublimis ; radice ex intima ; ab incognitis regnis ; sospitator, ab omnium principe missus " ; His pontificium is to give salvation to the soul ; He is the only path to light ; His followers alone are saved ; He is stronger than fate. Some doubt may, perhaps, be thrown over the extent of these ascriptions of deity bv the vague language with which Arnobius speaks of the gods (see below). But with everv de- duction they are magnificent, and at least lie in the direction of the fullest orthodoxy. The allusions to the incarnation, life, and death of the Redeemer are numerous. Ihe first is somewhat vaguely described as the assump- tion of a man to the self, the God ; its motive was the presentation of the God to human senses, and the general performance of Christ's mission. His resurrection and the subsequent appearances are insisted upon ; it is asserted (apparently) that He still appears to the faithful. To the Second Advent there is at most only a doubtful allusion (i. 39). (See generally, i. 36, 6.5 ; ii. 60.) On the origin of the Soul he is far more speculative than is his wont. Its sin im- perfection, and inborn infirmity (he holds) forbid the belief that it comes direct from the Supreme Cause. It cannot for the like reasons be immortal [i.e. absolutely and per se) ■ it ARNOBIUS outlives the body, but depends wholly on the gift of God for eternal duration. After death there awaits the evil a second death, a Gehenna of unquenchable fire, in which gradually they are consumed and annihilated (see especially ii. 15-54). The resurrection of the flesh is emphatically asserted, but in somewhat obscure terms (ii. 13). Of the existence of gods he speaks with much ambiguity. The actual objects of heathen worship he concludes from the nature of their mythology and ritual to be real but evil beings. But he nowhere denies that there exist also dii boni ; only he views them (if existent) as mere reflexes of the Supreme Nature, and as in no sense distinct objects of worship and prayer. In worshipping the Supreme (he argues), we worship by implica- tion — if to be worshipped they are — such gods as are gods indeed. On the nature and efficacy of prayer he uses perplexing language. His belief appar- ently is that in the present life all externals are fixed by an immovable destiny (vii. 10) ; that prayer is useful only as a means of divine communion ; but he yet describes the prayers of the Christian church as petitions for peace and pardon for all classes of mankind ; the emperor, the magistrate, the armies, etc. (iv. 36). Prayer is regarded as (in some sense not specified) efficacious for the dead (I.e.). Arnobius asserts the " freedom of the will " ; God calls man " non vi sed gratia " (ii. 64). In the latter books his arguments against heathen sacrifices are so managed as logically to exclude altogether the sacrifices both of the Jewish temple and of the Cross. Of idol- worship and incense he speaks in terms which prove that he can have known nothing of images, or incense, or a local presence, in the conventicula of the Christians. Of the Holy Scriptures Arnobius appears to have known very little. He makes some acute remarks (i. 58) on the rude style of the evangelists, but only one text (I. Cor. iii. 19) is quoted verbatim ; and even this is introduced as illud vulgatum (ii. 6). He records apocryphal miracles as evangelical (i. 46, 53) ; he knows nothing of any promise of temporal happiness (ii. 76) ; he confuses the Pharisees with the Sadducees (iii. 12). Of the O.T. he was apparently quite ignorant. In one passage (iii. 10) he even seems to speak of it with dis- respect ; though the passage has been ex- plained of the Rabbinical books. In many places he shews by implication a total ignor- ance of the national election and the ritual; of the Jews (to whom he scarcely alludes at all), and of the Scriptural prophecies andl chronology. These phenomena are, of course,, in great measure accounted for by the allegedi circumstances of the composition of the- work. They render more remarkable the- faintness of the tinge of Gnosticism in its pages. Obviously the authority of Arnobius; on points of Christian doctrine is reduced almost ad nihilum by these indications ; and we can hardly wonder that in the 5th cent. his treatise was banished by pope Gelasius to the index of apocryphal works. Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius have been very various. St. Jerome's verdict varies between praises of his libri luculentissimi ARNOBIUS, JUNIOR and censure of his defects as iiine-qiialis, tiinniis, con/usus, in style, method, and doctrine. Dr. Woodham (in liis edition of Tertullian's j Apologv, preliminary Kssays, ed. 1S30) pro- tests against the obscurity and neglect which have attended his name ; holds that his " peculiar position anil character invest his sentiments and reasoning with very singular , interest and value " ; pronounces him to he in some respects *' the keenest of tiie apolo- gists," and to be remarkably apposite to the popular arguments of modern times (pp. 21, 29, 52. 53)- To the whole of tliis verdict we subscribe. Arnobius presents as a maii a mind and ; character combinins; mucii ardour with much I common sense. His sincerity is eminently j manifest. He has apprehended to a degree ■ nowhere and never common tiie great fact of human ignorance. As a writer, he appears as the practised and facile, but not very fanciful, rhetorician of his time and country ; and is even a master and model of that peculiar style of a declining age which consists in a , subtle n\cdium between the dictions of poetry and of prose. As a storehouse of old I.atinity and of allusions to points of antiquity — to heathen mythology and ceremonial ; to law, educa- tion, and amusements — his work is of the ! greatest interest and importance. ! The following editions of Arnobius may be mentioned: — 1816, Leipz., J. C. Orellius (ex- cellent for a full and learned commentary) ; Halle, 1844, ed. G. F. Hildebrand; Paris, I 1844, Migne's Patr. Lat. ; Reifferscheid, ! Vienna, 1875 [Corpus Script. Ecd. Lat. iv.). I For an Eng. trans, see Ante-Nicene Lib. \ (T.&. T.Clark). [h.c.g.m.1 I Arnobius, Junior, a presbyter, or possibly I bp., of Gaul ; presumed, from internal evid- ! ence of his writings, to have lived at least as ; late as a.d. 460. I The only external notices seem to be those I of Venerable Bede, who praises his Com- j mentary on the Psalms, and of Alcuin, who I favourably alludes to his Altercation with I Serapion in a letter addressed to Flavius ! Merius, and in the sixth book of his treatise ' Contra Felicem Urgelitanum. The internal ! evidence is based upon the Commentarittm in j Psalmos, the Notes on some passages of the I Gospels, and the Altercatio cum Serapione. j The Commentary and Altercation may botli I be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima i (torn, viii.), Lyons, 1677 ; but the contents j render it very difficult to believe that the ] same person was author of both. I The Commentary on the Psalms is avowed by its author, who dedicates it to Leontius, j bp. of .\rles, and to Rusticus, bp. of Narbonne. ' The comments are devout, practical, and ' pointed, but brief and uncritical, interpreting , everything as referring to Christ and the church. They are, however, accused of a semi- Pelagian tendency ; and a very learned 'TOter, whose Hist. Eccl. appeared c. 1686, \ Natalis Alexander, invites special attention : to remarks of .Arnobius upon Pss. 1. ciii. cviii. . and cxxvi. (in the Heb. ; in A.V., li. civ. etc.). But Nat. Alexander was a Jansenist ; I and anti- Jansenist writers, such as the Bollan- : dists, might maintain that the majority were ARSACIUS 51 capable of an orthodox iulerprelati"n. It must, however, be allowed that the author of the Commentary is anti-.\ugustinian ; as on Ps. cviii. (cix.) 16, 17, he speaks of the heresy, " quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestinasse ad benedictionem. alios ad maledictioiiem." The Altercatio cum Sernpinne is a dialogue, represented as having been held between .Arnobius and Serapion. Serapion by turns plays the part of a Sabellian, an Arian, and a Pelagian, and is gradually driven from each position. Considerable learning is displayed and a clear apprehension of the points at issue, combined with much real ingenuity f which one is fouiul among the works of St. Chrysos- tom, and the renaaining seven wore published by Cotelier, Mou. Eccl. Grace, ii. (Pans, 1688) ; and two again on other subjects, which arc published among the works of Gregory Nyssen, but must be assigned to Asterius on the authority of Photius. Besides these Photius (Bibl. 271) gives extracts from several others. In addition to these homilies, a Life of his predecessor, St. Basil of Amasea, printed in the .ic'.a Sanctorum, April 26, is ascribed to him. A complete collection of his works will be found in Migne's Patr. Gk. xl. ; a complete list in Fabric. Bibl. Gk. ix. 513 seq. ed. Harlcs. An account of their contents is given by Tillemont, x. 400 seq. Asterius was a student of Demosthenes (Or. II, p. 207), and himself no mean orator. His best sermons (for they are somewhat uneven) display no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric, great power of expression, and great earnest- ness of moral conviction ; and some passages are even strikingly eloquent. His orthodoxy was unquestioned. Photius (Amphil. I.e.) contrasts him with his Arian namesake, as stanch in the faith, devoting himself to the care of his flock, and setting an example of a virtuous and godly life. His authority was quoted with great respect in later ages, more especially during the Iconoclastic controversy at the second council of Nicaea, when with a play on his name he was referred to as "a bright star (astrum) illumining the minds of all" (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1385, 1387, ed. Coleti). Bardenhewer (1008) refers to a Svllogehistoriea on Asterius by V. de Buck in Acta SS. Oct. (Paris, 1883), xiii. 330-332. [l.] Athanasius, St., archbp. of Alexandria. The life of Athanasius divides itself naturally into seven sections, respectively terminated by (i) his consecration; (2) his first exile; (3) his second exile ; (4) his second return ; (5) his third exile ; (6) his fourth exile ; (7) his death. (i) He was born at Alexandria, and had but scanty private means (Apol. c. Ar. 51 ; Socr. iv. 13). We must date his birth c. 296 ; not earlier, because he had no personal remem- brance of the persecution under Maximian in 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), and w^ as comparatively a yoimg man when consecrated bishop, soon after the Nicene council ; not later, because he received some theological instruction from persons who suffered in the persecution under Maximian II. in 311 (de Incarn. 56), and the first two of his treatises appear to have been written before 319. There can be no reason to doubt that Athanasius became an inmate of bp. Alexander's house, as his companion and secretary (Soz. ii. 17). The position involved great advan- tages. The place held by Alexander as " successor of St. Mark," and occupant of " the Evangelical throne," was second in the Christian hierarchy : we may call the bps. of Alexandria in the 4th cent., for conveni- ence' sake, archbishops or patriarchs, al- though the former name was then very rarely applied to them, and the latter not at all, and they were frequently designated, though not in contradistinction to all other prelates, by the title of Papas (pope), or " dear father." 54 ATHANASIUS Their ]io\ver throughout the churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis was, by ancient custom, which the Nicene council afterwards confirmed, almost monarchical, extending over about a hundred bishops, who revered their judgments as the decisions of the see of Rome were revered in Italv. One experience of a different kind, most fruitful in its con- sequences, was Athanasius's acquaintance with the great hermit Anthony. He tells us, in his Life of Anlhnnv, that he often saw him ; and although that reading of the conclusion of the preface, which makes him say that " he himself for some time attended on him, and poured water on his hands," may be con- sidered doubtful, yet we know that he was afterwards spoken of as " the ascetic," and that when, years later, he took shelter in the cells of the monks of Egypt, he found himself perfectly at home. He contracted an admir- ation for monasticism, which will not surprise those who remember that the spiritual inten- sity of the Christian life had found a most emphatic, though a one-sided expression, in the lives of men who fled, like Anthony, from a society at once tainted and brutalized beyond all modern conception. [Antonius.] TThe two essays of Athanasius, Against the Gentiles and On the Incarnation, which form one complete work addressed to a convert from heathenism, cannot be dated later than the end of 318 ; for they make no reference to the Arian controversy which broke out in 319. Dorner, in his work On the Person of Christ, has given a resume of their argument on the threefold subject of God, man, and the Incar- nate Word ; and Mohler calls the book on the Incarnation " the first attempt that had been made to present Christianity and the chief circumstances of the Ufe of Jesus Christ under a scientific aspect. By the sure tact of his noble and Christian nature, everything is referred to the Person of the Redeemer : everything rests upon Him : He appears throughout." The young author seems to have been ordained deacon about this time, and placed in the position of chief among the Alexandrian deacons. Among the clergy who joined the archbishop in calling on Arlus to retract, and who afterwards assented to his deposition, was the young archdeacon of Alexandria (see the Benedictine Athanasius, i. 396 seq.). In this spirit he attended Alex- ander to the Nicene council in 325. In that assembly he is represented by Gregory of Nazianzum {Orat. 21) as " foremost among those who were in attendance on bishops," and as " doing his utmost to stay the plague." His writings may assure us of the argument which he would maintain : that the real Divinity of the Saviour was (i) as- serted in many places of Scripture, (ii) involved in the notion of His unique Sonship, (iii) re- quired by the Divine economy of redemption, and (iv) attested by the immemorial conscious- ness of the church. And although, as he himself informs us, the council would willingly have confined themselves to purely Scriptural terms {de Deer. 19) if their legitimate sense could have been bond fide admitted ; although too he was far from imagining that any form or expression of human thought would adequately represent a Divine mystery ; yet ATHANASIUS his convictions went thoroughly with the adoption of the term " Homoousion " or " co- essential," explained, as it was, in a sense which made it simply equivalent to " truly Son of God," and proposed as a test of adher- ence to the Scriptural Christology. And if we are to understand his mind at the close of the council, we must say that he regarded its proceedings as something done, in fact, " for the rightful honour of Jesus." Nothing was to him more certain than that Jesus was, in tlie full force of the words, God Incarnate ; that Arianism was essentially a denial, and the " Homoousion " the now authenticated symbol, of His claim on men's absolute devotion ; and that it was infinitely worth while to go through any amount of work or suffering in defence of such a truth, and in the cause of such a Master. More work was near at hand, and suffering was not far off. A solemn and touching in- cident of Alexander's last moments is con- nected with the history of Athanasius, who was then absent from Alexandria. The dying man, while his clergy stood around him, called for Athanasius. One of those present, also bearing that name, answered, but was not noticed by the archbishop, who again repeated the name, and added, " You think to escape — but it cannot be." Some time appears to have elapsed between his death and the assembling of the Egyptian bishops to con- secrate a successor. An encyclical letter of these same Egyptian prelates proclaimed to all Christendom, some years later, that a majority of them had elected Athanasius in the presence, and amid the applause, of the whole Alexandrian laity, who for nights and days persevered in demanding him as " the good, pious, ascetic Christian," who would prove a " genuine bishop," and prayed aloud to Christ for the fulfilment of their desire (Apol. c. Ar. 6). It was granted ; and then, in the words of Gregory, " by the suffrages of the whole people, and not by those vile methods, afterwards prevalent, of force and bloodshed, but in a manner apostolic and spiritual, was Athanasius elevated to the throne of Mark," some time after the begin- ning of May in 326, and very probably on June 8. (2) From his Consecration (326) to his First Exile (336). — At the outset of his archiepisco- pate is to be placed the organization of the church in Ethiopia or Abyssinia by his con- secration of Frumentius as bp. of Axum. [Edesius.] Another event of these com- paratively quiet times was Athanasius's visitation of the Thebaid, a region where much trouble was being caused by the Arians, and by the Meletians, who resisted his earnest efforts to repress their separatist tendency. Now began the troubles from which the Arians never suffered Athanasius to rest till the last hour of his life. It was probably in 330 that he had his first severe experience of their hatred. After the Nicene council, Constantine had become a zealot for ortho- doxy, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had been exiled. But Eusebius had procured his recall by orthodox professions ; it may have been by his means that Arius himself was recalled, perhaps in Nov. 330. Eusebius now entered ATHANASIUS iiit" a league with the Meletiaiis of Egypt, of uhmn a bishop named John Arcaph was the h. .1(1. " He bought them," says Athanasius, • l>v large promises, and arranged that they should help him on any emergency " by that m.ii-hincry of false accusation which they had .ilroady employed against three archbishops. Tlie charges were not to be theological : to .ittack Athanasius's teaching would be to (Itclare against the Nicene doctrine, and this was a step on which Eusebius could not \. iited, he ought in justice to be received to I liurch communion. Athanasius's answer shows the ground on which he took his stand. "It cannot be right to admit persons to com- iniuiinn who invented a heresy contrary to t'i>- truth, and were anathematized by the imenical council." It is probable that Fleury thinks, though Tillemont and . iiuier date it much later) we should refer to I ins period the visit of Anthony to Alexandria [Vtt. Ant. 69), when he confounded the Arians' ' report that he " agreed with them." This would be a great support to Athanasius. But Eusebius had recourse to Coustantine, who thereupon wrote, commanding Athanasius to admit into the church " all who desired it," I on pain of being removed from his see by sheer I State power. This gave him an opportunity I of laying before Constantine his own views of j his duty. " There could be no fellowship," he wrote, " between the Catholic church of i Christ and the heresy that was fighting against Him." Not long afterwards, in compliance with instructions from Eusebius, three Mele- tians, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, ap- peared before the emperor at Nicomedia with ! a charge against Athanasius that he had assumed the powers of the government by taxing Egypt to provide linen vestments for the church of Alexandria. But two of Athanasius's priests, happening to be at court, at once refuted this calumny ; and 1 Constantine wrote to Athanasius, condemning ; his accusers, and summoning him to Nicome- ' dia. Eusebius, however, persuaded the ac- j cusers to meet him on his arrival with a bolder I charge : "he had sent a purse of gold to 1 Philumenus, a rebel." This, being easily i overthrown, was at once followed up by the j famous story of the broken chalice. A certain j Isch\Tas, a layman pretending to the character of a presbyter, officiated at a little hamlet 1 called " the Peace of Sacontarurum," in the ; Mareotis ; Athanasius, being informed of this ' while on a visitation tour, sent a priest named I Macarius, with the actual pastor of the dis- i trict, to summon Ischyras before him, but ' found him ill. Isch^Tas, on recovering, . attached himself to the Meletians, who, re- , solving to use him as a tool, made him declare j that Macarius had found him in church I " ofifering the oblations," had thrown down I the holy table, broken the chalice, and burnt I the church books ; of which sacrilege Athan- I asius was to share the responsibilitv. But Athanasius was able to prove before Constan- tine at Nicomedia, early in 332, that, point by point, it was a falsehood. About mid-Lent he returned home with a letter from Constantine ATHANASIUS 55 reprobating his enemies .iiul praising him as " a man of God " ; whereupon Ischyras came to him, asking to be received into the church, and piteously protesting that the Meletians had set him on to assert a falsehood. But he was not admitted to conmiunion ; and the story was ere long revived in an aggravated form — Athanasius himself being now called the perpetrator of the outrage (Apol. 62, 6.1, 2S. 74. 17, 63, 68). A darker ]ilot followed. John Arcaph per- suaded a Meletian bishop, named Arsenius, to go into hiding. A rumour was then spread that he had been murdered, and dismembered for purposes of magic, by Athanasius, in proof of which the Meletians exhibited a dead man's hand (Apol. 63, 42 ; Socr. i. 27 ; Soz. ii. 25 ; Theod. i. 30). The emperor was persuaded to think it a case for inquiry. Athanasius received a summons to appear at Antiorh and stand his trial. At first ho disdained to take any steps, but afterwards sent a deacon to search for the missing Arseiuus. The deacon ascertained that Arsenius was concealed in a monastery at Ptemencyrcis, on the eastern side of the Nile. Before he could arrive there the superior sent off Arsenius, but was himself arrested by the deacon, and obliged to confess " that Arsenius was alive." At Tyre Arsenius was discovered. Constantine stopped the proceedings at Antioch on hearing of this exposure, and sent Athanasius a letter, to be read frequently in public, in which the Meletians were warned that any fresh offences would be dealt with by the emperor in person, and according to the civil law (Apol. 9, 68). The slandered archbishop had now a breathing-time. Arcaph himself " came into the church," announced to Constantine his reconciliation with Athanasius, and received a gracious reply ; while Arsenius sent to his " blessed pope " a formal renunciation of schism, and a promise of canonical obedience {Apol. 66, 17, 70, 69, 8, 27). But the faction had not repented. Eusebius persuaded Constantine that such grave scand- als as the recent charges ought to be examined in a council ; and that Caesarea would be the fitting place. There a council met in 334 (see Tillemont, Ath. a. 15 ; cf. Festal. Epp. index, for a.d. 334). Athanasius, expecting no justice from a synod held under such circumstances, persisted, Sozomen says (ii. 25), " for thirty months " in his refusal to attend. Being at last peremptorily ordered by Con- stantine to attend a council which was to meet at Tyre, he obeyed, in the summer of 335, and was attended by about fifty of his suffragans. Athanasius saw at once that his enemies were dominant ; the presiding bishop, Flacillus of Antioch, was one of an Arian succession. Some of the charges Athanasius at once confuted ; as to others he demanded time. Incredible as it may seem, the dead man's hand was again exhibited. Athanasius led forward a man with downcast face, closely muffled ; then, bidding him raise his head, looked round and asked, " Is not this Ar- senius ? " The identity was undeniable. He drew from behind the cloak first one hand, and then, after a pause, the other ; and remarked with triumphant irony, " I suppose no one thinks that God has given to any man 56 ATHANASIUS more hands than two." The case of the broken chalice now remained ; it was resolved to send a commission of inquiry to the Mare- otis. Ischvras accompanied the commis- sioners, as " a sharer in lodging, board, and wine-cup " ; they opened their court in the Mareotis. It appeared in evidence that no books had been burned, and that Isch>Tas had been too ill to officiate on the day of the alleged sacrilege. An inquiry of such an ex parte character called forth indignant protests from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, one of the documents bearing the date Sept. 7, 335. The commissioners, disregarding remonstrance, returned to Tyre (Apol. 27, 73-76, 17, 15). Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the council of Tyre as akeady vitiated {Apol. 82), resolved, without waiting for the judgment of such an assembly, " to make a bold and dangerous experiment, whether the throne was inaccessible to the voice of truth." Attended bv five of his suffragans, he took the first vessel for Constantinople, and suddenly presented himself in the middle of the road when the emperor was riding into the city. Constantine, on learning who he \yas, and what was his errand, tried to pass him by in silence ; but Athanasius firmly stood his ground. "Either summon a lawful council, or give me opportunity of meeting my accusers in your presence." The request was con- ceded. The bishops of the council, after receiving their commissioners' report, had by a majority condemned Athanasius, and then pronounced Arius orthodox on the ground of a doctrinal statement made five years earlier, when they were startled by an imperial letter expressing suspicion of their motives, and summoning them to Constantinople. Many of them, in alarm, fled homewards ; but the two Eusebii, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius repaired to court, and, saying nothing of " the chalice," or the report of the commission, presented a new charge, like the former quasi-political ones — that Athanasius had talked of distressing Constantinople by preventing the sailing of Alexandrian corn- ships. " How could I, a private person, and poor, do anything of the kind ? " asked Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia answered by affirming with an oath that Athanasius was rich and powerful, and able to do any- thing. The emperor cut short Athanasius's defence with a show of indignation ; and, perhaps not from real beUef in the charge, but by way of getting rid of the case and silencing the archbishop's enemies in his own interest, banished him to the distant city of Trier or Treves, the seat of government of his eldest son Constantine, who received the exile with much kindness, in Feb. 336. (3) Frofn his First Exile {336) to his Second (340). — His life at Treves, including nearly two years and a half, was an interval of rest, much needed and doubtless invigorating, between the storms of the past and those of the future. He had now to " stand and wait " — a new experience for him. He was " abundantly suppUed with all necessaries " (Constantine II. in Apol. 87) ; he had the friendship of Maxi- min, the orthodox bp. of Treves, afterwards canonized ; he had with him some Egyptian ATHANASIUS " brethren," and kept up a correspondriu e with his friends at home, although at the risk of having his letters seized. For more than a year Constantine's death produced no change in Athanasius's position ; but at length, on June 17, 338, Constantine II., who in the partition of the empire had a certain precedency over his brothers Con- stantius and Constans, the sovereigns of the East and of Italy, wrote from Treves to the Catholics of Alexandria, announcing that he had resolved, in fulfilment of an intention of his father, to send back Athanasius, of whose character he expressed high admiration (Apol. 87). In this he appears to have presumed his brother's consent, and to have then taken Athanasius with him to Viminacium, an important town of Moesia Superior, on the high-road to Constantinople. Here the three emperors had a meeting, and all concurred in ' the restoration of Athanasius, who, after pass- ing through Constantinople, saw Constantius j a second time, at a farther point on his homeward journey, at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Apol. ad Const. 5 ; Hist. Ar. 8). His arrival at Alexandria, in Nov. 338, was hailed by popular rejoicing : the churches resounded with thanksgivings, and the clergy " thought it the happiest day of their Hves." But his enemies bestirred themselves, and " did not shrink from long journeys " in order to press on the emperors new charges against him — that he had misappropriated the corn granted by the late emperor for charitable purposes in Egypt and Libya, and that the day of his re- turn had been signalized by bloodshed. Con- stantius wrote to him in anger, assuming the truth of the former charge ; but Athanasius was successful in disproving both. However, Constantius— who was so soon to be " his scourge and torment " (Hooker, v. 42, 2) — fell more and more under the influence of his great enemy Eusebius, now transferred from Nico- media to the see of Constantinople, which had been forcibly vacated by the second expulsion of the orthodox Paul. The Eusebians now resumed a project which had been found im- practicable, while Constantine lived ; this was i to place on " the Evangelical throne " an I Arian named Pistus, who had been a priest I under Alexander, had been deposed by him for adhering to Arius, and had been conse- crated, as it seems [Apol. 24), by a notorious Arian bishop named Secundus. It was argued that Athanasius had offended against all eccle- siastical principles by resuming his see in defiance of the Tyrian'sentence, and by virtue of mere secular authority. The charge did not come well from a party which had leaned so much on the court and the State ; but it must be allowed that Athanasius's return had given some colour to the objection, although he doubtless held that the assembly at Tyre had forfeited all moral right to be respected as a council. By way of harassing Athanasius, the Eusebians, apparently about this time, made Isch>Tas a bishop, after obtaining an order in the name of the emperor that a church should be built for him — an oider which failed to procure him a congregation {Apol. 12, 85). The Eusebians now applied to the West in behalf of their nominee Pistus. Three clergy appeared as their envoys before Julius, bp. of ATHANASIUS Kninr ; on the othor liaiui, Atli.iii.isius mmiI to Rome presbyters to state his rase, and an iiicvclir — the invaluable ilocunient which has inrnished us with so niiich inforniatii>n — from the holv svnod assembled at Alexandria ont t Egypt, thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis," :uposed, says Atlianasius, of nearly loo !■ Kites. At Rome his envoys gave such - ulcnce respecting Pistus as to cause the - iiior of the Eusebian envoys to decamp by insht in spite of an indisposition. His coni- panions asked Julius to convoke a council, and to act, if he pleased, as judge. He aicordingly invited both parties to a council, I > be held where Athanasius should choose, rhus matters stood about the end of 339. Early in 340 a new announcement disquieted the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was com- ing from the court to be installed as bishop {Encycl. 2). This, says Athanasius, was con- sidered an unheard-of wrong. The churches were more thronged than ever ; the people, in great excitement, and with passionate out- .ries, called the magistrates and the whole city tii witness that this attack on their legitimate bishop proceeded from the mere wantonness of Arian hatred. Ciregory, they knew, was an Arian, and therefore acceptable to the Euse- bian party : he was a fellow-countryman of Philagrius. Philagrius attacked the church • f St. (Juirinus, and encouraged a mob of the west townspeople and of savage peasants to ■ rpetrate atrocious cruelties and profana- u ms. Athanasius was residing in the pre- . incts of the church of St. Theonas : he knew that he was specially aimed at, and, in hope of preventing further outrage, he withdrew from the city to a place of concealment in the neighbourhood, where lie busied himself in preparing an encyclic to give an account of these horrors. This was on March 19. Four days later Gregory is said to have " entered the city as bishop." Athanasius, after hastily completing and dispatching his encyclic, sailed for Rome in the Easter season of 340, some weeks after Constantine II. had been slain during his invasion of Italy. (4) From his Second Exile (^40) to his Second Return (346). — After Julius had welcomed Athanasius, he sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus, in the early summer of 340, to repeat his invitation to the Eusebian prelates, to fix definitely the next December as the time of the proposed council, and Rome as the place. Athanasius received much kindness from the emperor's aunt. Entropion, and from many others {Ap. ad Const. 417 ; cf. Fest. Ep. 13). He had with him two Egyptian monks. Their presence in the city, and Athanasius's enthusiasm for Anthony and other types of monastic saintliness, made a strong impression on the Roman church society, and abated the prejudices there exist- ing against the very name of monk, and the disgust at a rude and strange exterior. In fact, Athanasius's three years (340-343) at Rome had two great historic results, "(a) The Latin church, which became his "scholar" as well as his " loyal partisan," was confirmed by the spell of his master-mind " in its adhesion to orthodoxy, although it did not ATHANASIUS 57 iiubihc fioiu liiiu the theological spirit"; and (/>) when Gibbon says that " .Vthanasius intro- duced into Rome the knowledge and practice of the monastic life," he records the origination of a vast European movement, and represents the great Alexandrian exile as the spiritual ancestor of Benedict, of Bernard, and of the countless founders and reformers of " re- ligious " communities in the West. Meantime Elpidius and Philoxenus had discharged their errand. The liusebians at Antioch, finding that .Athanasius was at Rome, and that the council to which they were invited would be a free ecclesiastical assembly, detained the Roman legates beyond the time specified, and then dismissed them with the excuse that Constantius was occupied with his Persian war. At the same time they stimulated Philagrius and Gregory to new severities. Orthodox bishops were scourged and imprisoned ; Potammon never recovered from his stripes ; Sarapammon, another confessor-bishop, was exiled {Hist. Ar. 12). The letters of Alexandrians to Athanasius, consolatory as proofs of their affection, gave mournful accounts of torture and robbery, of hatred towards himself shewn in persecution of his aunt, of countenance shewn to Gregory by the " duke " Balacius ; and some of these troubles were in his mind when, early in 341, he wrote " from Rome " his Festal Letter for the year. That year had begun without any such settlement of his case as had been hoped for at Rome. December had passed, and no council could be held, for the Eusebians had not arrived. January came, and at last the legates returned, the unwilling bearers of a letter so offensive that Juhus "resolved to keep it to himself, in the hope that some Eusebians" would even yet arrive (Apol. 24) and render the public reading of it unneces- sary. No one came. On the contrary, the Eusebians resolved to take advantage of the approaching dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch, " the Golden Church," in order to hold a council there. Accordingly, ninety- seven bishops, many of whom were rather negatively than positively heterodox, as- sembled on this occasion, apparently in Aug. 341. Constantius was present. The sentence passed against Athanasius at Tyre was af- firmed ; several canons were passed ; and three creeds were framed, in language partly vague and general, partly all but reaching the Nicene standard (cf. Newman, Arians, c. 4, s. I ; cf. Athan. Treatises, i. 105 seq.). This business necessarily lasted some time ; and no information as to this council had reached Rome when, in Nov. 341, Athanasius having now been waiting at Rome for eighteen months (Apol. 29), Julius assembled the long- delayed council, consisting of more than fifty bishops, in the church of the presbyter Vito. Athanasius's case was fully examined ; Ath- anasius was formally i)ronounced innocent ; his right to brotherly treatment and church communion — admitted from the first by the Roman bishop — was solemnly recognized by the Italian council. The year 342 is not eventful in his history. Constans had shewn himself friendly to Athanasius, who at his request had sent him from Alexandria some bound copies of the Scriptures [A p. ad Const. 4). 58 ATHANASIUS Narcissus, Maris, and two other prelates ap- peared before Constans at Treves, spoke in support of the decisions against Athanasius, and presented a creed which might, at first sight, appear all but to confess the " Homo- ousion." But Constans, doubtless swayed by bp. Maxiinin, who would not admit the Eastern envoys to communion, dismissed them from his presence (Athan. de Syn. 25 ; Soz. iii. 10 ; Hil. Fragm. iii. 27). Athanasius remained at Rome until the summer of 343, when, " in the fourth year" from his arrival, he received a letter from Constans, bv which he was ordered to meet him at Milai'i (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4)- Surprised at the summons, he inquired as to its probable cause, and learned that some bishops had been urging Constans to propose to Constan- tius the assembling of a new council, at which East and West might be represented. On arriving at the great capital of Northern Italy, which was to be so memorably associated with the struggle between the church and Arianism, he was admitted, with Protasius, bp. of Milan, behind the veil of the audience-chamber, and received with " much kindness " by Constans, who told him that he had already written to his brother, " requesting that a council might be held." Athanasius left Milan immediately afterwards, being desired by Constans to come into Gaul, in order to meet Hosius, the ven- erated bp. of Cordova, and accompany him to the council, which both sovereigns had now agreed to assemble on the frontier line of their empires, at the Moesian city of Sardica. And there, about the end of 343, some 170 prelates met, a small majority being Westerns. It soon appeared that united action was impossible. The majority, ignoring the councils of TjTe and Antioch, and treating the whole case as open, could not but regard Athanasius as innocent, or, at least, as not yet proved guilty ; and he " joined them in celebrating the Divine mysteries " (Hil. Fragm. iii. 14). The Eusebian minority, on reaching Sardica, had simply announced their arrival, and then shut themselves up in the , lodgings provided for them at the palace, and refused to join their brethren until the persons ' whom they denounced as convicted men should be deprived of seats in the council. The answer was, that the council was pre- pared to go into all the cases which could be submitted to it : each party would be free to implead the other. The Eusebian bishops, although urged to confront their adversaries, withdrew from Sardica and established them- selves as a council at Philippopolis within the Eastern empire, renewed the sentences against Athanasius, put forth new ones against Julius, Hosius, and others, drew up an encyclic, and [ adopted a creed (Apol. 36, 45, 48 ; Hist. Ar. 15, 16, 44 ; Hil. de Syji. 34 ; Fragm. 3). The pre- lates at Sardica proceeded with their inquiry, recognized the innocence of Athanasius, and excommunicated eleven Eusebian bishops, as men who " separated the Son from the Father, and so merited separation from the Catholic church." They enacted several canons, in- cluding the famous one providing for a reference, in certain circumstances, to " Julius, bp. of Rome," in " honour of Peter's mem- ory," so that he might make arrangements ATHANASIUS for the rehearing of a prelate's cause. It need hardly be added that they would have no creed but the Nicene. They wrote letters of sympathy to the suffragans of Athanasius and the churchmen of Alexandria, urging the faithful " to contend earnestly for the sound faith and the innocence of Athanasius." The bold line taken at Sardica provoked the advisers of Constantius to fresh severities ; and the Alexandrian magistrates received orders to behead Athanasius, or certain of his clergy expressly named, if they should conn; near the city. Athanasius, still kept under the emperor's ban, had gone from Sardica to Naissus, and thence, at the invitation of Constans, to Aquileia. There, in company with the bp. Fortunatian, he was admitted to more than one audience ; and whenever Constans mentioned Constantius, he replied in terms respectful towards the latter. Con- stans peremptorily, and even with a threat of civil war, urged his brother to reinstate Athanasius (Socr. ii. 22). The death of Gre- gory, about Feb. 345 {Hist. Ar. 21), gave Constantius an occasion for yielding the point. He therefore wrote to Athanasius, affecting to be solicitous of the Western emperor's assent to an act of his own free clemency. He wrote two other letters {Apol. 51 ; Hist. Ar. 22), and employed six " counts " to write encour- agingly to the exile ; and Athanasius, after receiving these letters at Aquileia, made up his mind, at last, to act on those assurances ; but not until Constantius could tell Constans that he had been " expecting Athanasius for a year." Invited by Constans to Treves, Athanasius made a diversion on his journey in order to see Rome again ; it was some six years since he had been cordially welcomed by JuUus, who now poured forth his generous heart in a letter of congratulation for the Alexandrian church, one of the most beautiful documents in the whole Athanasian series. Julius dwelt on the well-tried worth of Athan- asius, on his own happiness in gaining such a friend, on the steady faith which the Alex- andrians had exhibited, on the rapture with which they would celebrate his return ; and concluded by invoking for his " beloved brethren" the blessings " which eye had not seen, nor ear heard." * Athanasius travelled northward about midsummer ; visited Con- stans, passed through Hadrianople {Hist. Ar. 18), proceeded to Antioch, and saw Constan- tius for the third time {Ap. ad Const. 5). The reception was gracious : the emperor valued himself on his impassive demeanour (Ammian. xvi. 10). Athjmasius, without viUfying his enemies, firmly desired leave to confront them {Ap. ad Const. I.e. ; Hist. Ar. 22, 44). " No," said Constantius, " God knows, I will never again credit such accusations ; and all records of past charges shall be erased." This latter promise he at once fulfilled, by orders sent to the authorities in Egypt ; and he ^\Tote letters in favour of the' archbishop to the clergy of Egypt and the laity of Alexandria. One thing he asked, that Athanasius would allow the Alexandrian Arians a single church. Athanasius promptly replied that he would do so, if a church might be granted at Antioch to * Apol. 55. Socrates (ii. 23) inserts eulogistic phrases which Athanasius's text does not give. ATHANASIUS the " Eustathiau " Ixuly. which held aloof from the crypto- Ariaii bp. Lcontiiis, and whose services, held in a house, lie had been attend- ing. The emperor would have agreed to this, but his advisers stood in the way.* From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to do him honour, and to congratulate his church. And now lie had but to return home and enjoy the welcome which that church was eager to give. This he did, acconling to the Festal Index, on Oct. 21 (Paophi 24), 3.tC. We see in Gregory Nazianzen's panegyric a picture of the vast mass of population, dis- tributed into its several classes, and streaming latth, " like another Nile," to meet him at some distance from Alexandria ; the faces gazing from every eminence at the well-known team, the ears strained to catch his accents, the voices rising in emulous plaudits, the hands clapping, the air fragrant with incense, the city festal with banquets and blazing with illuminations — all that made this return of Athanasius in aftor-times the standard for any -pltMuiid popul.ir display. (5) From his Si-cotul Return (346) to his Third ;:..nV^ (^36).— His 19th Festal Letter, for 347. begins with a thanksgiving for having been " brought from distant lands." The Egyptian prelates, in council, received the decrees of Sardica. More than 400 bishops of different countries, including Britain, were now in communion with Athanasius ; he had a mul- titude of their " letters of peace " to answer. Many persons in Egypt who had sided with the Arians came by night to him with their excuses : it was a time " of deep and wondrous peace" (Hist. At. 25), which lasted for a few years. Valens and Ursacius had already, it seems, anathematized Arianism before a council at Milan ; but they deemed it ex- pedient to do more. In 347 they appeared at Rome, and presented to Julius a humble apologetic letter, having already written in a different strain to Athanasius, announcing that they were " at peace with him." t He believed at the time that they were sincere ; thev afterwards ascribed their act to fear of Con'stans (Hist. Ar. 29). This motive, if it existed, was ere long removed ; the revolt of Magnentius brought Constans to an ignomini- ous death at the foot of the P>Tenees, in Feb. 350. This tragedy was a severe shock to Athanasius. He received, indeed, letters from Constantius, assuring him of continued favour, and encouraging him to pursue his episcopal work. The .-Mexandrian authorities were also commanded to suppress any " plot- ting against Athanasius." Thereupon in pre- sence of high state officers, including the • See Socr. ii. 23, Soz. iii. 20. They were called after bp. Eustathius (Hist. Ar. 4), deposed by Arians in 330. For Leontius, see de Fuua, 26 ; Theod. ii. 24 ; Hooker, v. 42, 9. Many of the orthodox continued to worship in his churches (<•.?. Flavian and Diodore). Constantius's absolute dependence on his advisers is scornfully noted in Hisl. Ar. 69, 70. t See Newman's note, Hist. Tracts, p. 86 (.-ipol. 19): cf. Apol. 2; Hisl. Ar. 26, 44. As Westerns, they naturally treated the bp. of Rome with much greater deference than the bp. of Ale.xandria ; and even in their statement to Julius they betray their distrust of Athanasius. That they should retract, from motives of policy, was for them no unnatural course : cf. Hil. Fragm. i. 20. ATHANASIUS 59 bearers of these letters, .Vthanasiiis desired his people, assembled in church, *' to pray for the safety of the most religious Constantius .\iigustus." The response was at once made, " C) Christ, help Constantius ! " (Ap. ad Const. 9, 10, 23; Hist. Ar. 24, 51). He had leisure for writing On the Nicinc Definition of Faith * and On the Opinions of Dionysius, his great predecessor in the 3rd cent., whose language, employed in controversy with Sabellianism, had been unfairly quoted in support of Arianism. t fDiONVSius.] He also brought out, at this time, what is called his Apology Of^ainst the Arians, although he afterwards made additions to it.t It may have been about this time that he chose the blind scholar Didymus, already renowned for vast and varied learning, to preside over the " Catechetical School." [Didymus.] When Magnentius sent envoys to Constantius, one of them visited Alexandria ; and Athanasius, in speaking to him of Constans, burst into tears. He at first had some apprehension of danger froni Magnentius ; but it was soon evident that his real danger was from the Arianizing ad\iscrs of Constantius. Valens and Ursacius, having now recanted their re- cantation, were ready to wea\e new plots ; and Liberius, the new bp. of Rome, was plied with letters against him, which were out- weighed, in the judgment of a Roman synod, by an encyclic of eighty Egyptian prelates ; and Rome remained faithful to his cause. (See Liberius's letter to Constantius, Hil. Fragm. 5. Another letter, in which Liberius is made to say that he had put Athanasius out of his communion for refusing to come to Rome when summoned, is justly regarded as a forgery.) This was in 352 ; and Athanasius, in May 353, thought it well to send 5 bishops (Soz. iv. 9, and Fragm. Maff.), one being his friend Serapion of Thmuis, and 3 presbyters, to disabuse Constantius of bad impressions as to his conduct. Five days later, May 23, Montanus, a " silcntiary " or palace chamber- lain, arrived with an imperial letter for- bidding him to send envoys, but granting a request for himself to go to Milan. Athanasius, detecting an attempt to decoy him, replied that as he had never made such a request, he could not think it right to use a permission granted under a misconception ; but that if the emperor sent him a definite order, he would set forth at once (Ap. ad Const. 19-21). Montanus departed ; and the next news that Athanasius received from Europe was such as to make him forget all personal danger. The Western usurper had been finally overthrown in August ; and Constantius, having gone to Aries for the • In this treatise he guards the Catholic sense of the title " Son," gives some account of the council's proceedings, and defends the language adopted by it, adducing ante-Xicene authorities. (He upholds Origen's orthodoxy.) t He urged that Dionysius had been speaking simply of Christ's Manhood (see I,iddon's Bamp. l.tcl. p. 425). : In the Hollandist I.ife (Act. .SS., May 2), the Apology acainst Arians is called the Syllogus, or collection of documents, etc., framed about 342, and afterwards appended to the Arian History "ad Monachos." The old name of Second Apology is, at all events, clearly misapplied. 60 ATHANASIUS wiater, was induced by the Arians to hold there, instead of at Aquileia, the council which Liberius and many Italian bishops had re- quested him to assemble.* The event was disastrous : Vincent, the Roman legate, was induced to join with other prelates in con- demning Athanasius ; but Paulinus of Treves had inherited Maximin's steadfastness, and preferred exile to the betrayal of a just cause. In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches were so crowded that some persons suffered severely, and the people lu-ged Athanasius to allow the Easter services to be held in a large church which was still unfinished, called the Caesarean. The case was pecuUar {Ap. ad Const. 15 ; Epiph. Haer. 69, 2) : the church was being built on ground belonging to the emperor ; to use it prematurely, without his leave, might be deemed a civil offence ; to use it before dedication, an ecclesiastical im- propriety. Athanasius tried to persuade the people to put up with the existing inconveni- ence : they answered, they would rather keep Easter in the open country. Under these circumstances he gave way. The Arianizers were habitually courtiers, and ready, on occasion, to be formahsts likewise ; and this using of the undedicated imperial church was one of several charges now urged at court against their adversary, and dealt with in his Apology to Constantius ; the others being that he had stimulated Constans to quarrel with his brother, had corresponded with Magnen- tius, and that he had not come to Italy on receiving the letter brought by Montanus. A letter which Athanasius wrote before the Easter of this year, or perhaps of 355, is par- ticularly interesting ; he seeks to recall Dracontius, a monk who had been elected to a bishopric, and had weakly fled from his new duties. The earnestness, good sense, and affectionateness of this letter are very charac- teristic of Athanasius. He dwells repeatedly on the parable of the Talents, reminds Dra- contius of solemn obligations, and warns him against imagining the monastic life to be the one sphere of Christian self-denial. f The calm contemplation of fast-approaching trials, which would make a severe demand on Christian men's endurance, shews a "discern- ment " of the " signs " of 354-5 in Athanasius. For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of the success of Constantius in terrorizing the great majority of a large council at Milan, which had been summoned at the urgent desire of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary weak- ness, and Maximus of Naples, who was suffer- ing at the time from illness, alone refused to condemn Athanasius {Hist. Ar. 32-34^ ; and in standing out against the incurable tyran- nousness of Caesarism, as thus exhibited, must have felt themselves to be contending both for civil justice and for Nicene orthodoxy. That some coup d'etat was meditated against Athanasius must have been evident, not only • See Uberius's letter to Hosius in Hil. Fragm. 6 The spurious letter referred to above (as to which see de Broglie, VEgLet I'Emp. 2me part. i. 233) begins Studens paci," and forms Fr. 4. t " I know of bishops who do, and of monks who do not, fast." ATHANASIUS from the emperor's passionate eagerness to have him condemned, and from the really brutal persecution which began to rage throughout the empire against those who adhered to his communion (Hist. Ar. 31), but from the appearance at Alexandria, in July or Aug. 355, of an imperial notary, named Diogenes, who, though he brought no express orders, and had no interview with Athanasius, used every effort to get him out of the city. Failing in this, he departed in Dec. ; and on Jan. 5, 356, Syrianus, a general, with another notary named Hilarius, entered Alexandria. The Arian party exulted in their approaching triumph ; Athanasius asked SyTianus if he had brought any letter from the Emperor. He said he had not. The archbishop referred him to the guarantee of security which he had himself received ; and the presbyters, the laity, and the majority of all the inhabitants supported him in demanding that no change should be made without a new imperial letter — the rather that they themselves were pre- paring to send a deputation to Constantius. The prefect of Egypt and the provost of Alexandria were present at this interview ; and Syrianus, at last, promised " by the hfe of the emperor" that he would comply with the demand. This was on Jan. 18 ; and for more than three weeks all was quiet. But about midnight on Thursday, Feb. 8, when Athanasius was at a night-long vigil service in St. Theonas's church, preparatory to the Friday service, Syrianus, with Hilarius, and Gorgonius, the head of the poUce force, beset the church with a large body of soldiers. " I sat down," says Athanasius, " on my throne " (which would be at the extreme end of the church), " and desired the deacnn to read the Psalm " (our 136th), " and the people to respond. For His mercy endureth for ever,_ and then all to depart home." This majestic " act of faith " was hardly finished, when the doors were forced, and the soldiers rushed in with a fierce shout, clashing their arms, discharging their arrows, and brandishing their swords in the light of the church lamps. Some of the people in the nave had already departed, others were trampled down or mortally injured ; others cried to the arch- bishop to escape. " I said I would not do so until they had all got away safe. So I stood up, and called for prayer, and desired all to go out before me . . . and when the greater part had gone, the monks who were there, and certain of the clergy, came up to me and carried me away." And then, he adds, he passed through the mass of his enemies un- observed, thanking God that he had been able to secure in the first instance his people's safety, and afterwards his own. As on a former occasion, he deemed it his duty to accept an opportunity of escape, especially when the sacrifice of his life would have been ruinous to the cause of the church in Egypt (see Augustine, Ep. 228, 10) ; and he there- fore concealed himself in the country, " hiding himself," as the Arian History, c. 48, employs the prophet's words, " for a little moment, until the indignation should be overpast." (6) From his Third to his Fourth Exile (356- 362). — On leaving Alexandria, Athanasius at first thought of appealing in person to Con- ATHANASIUS ' iiitiiis, who could not, he tried to hope, have !■ tioued the late outrage. But he was dt-- I i-d by the news of one woe following upon ther (.-f^. ad Const. 27, iq). Bishops of West who had refused to disown him were icriuK under tyranny, or had been hurried t>) exile. Among the latter class was the ^i: l\oman bishop himself, who had manfully Pi spumed both gifts and menaces (Theod. ii. 16); 1:; ind Hosius, on addressing to Constantius a lUMistrance full of pathetic dignity, had been ii for to be detained at Sirmium. Then 1 lie news which touched Athanasius more :iosely. It was given out that one George, ; ,a Cappadocian of ev'il reputation and ruthless d ;temper, was coming to supersede him ; and ; jthat a vague creed, purporting to be simply Scriptural, but in fact ignoring tiie Nicene it: doctrine, was to be proposed for his suffragans' 1;' 'acceptance. This last report set him at once |, ;to work on a Letter to the Egyptian and Libyan Bishops. But he had soon to hear of a - repetition of the sacrileges and brutalities of 1 "the days of Gregory. As before. Lent was ,, 'the time chosen for the arrival of the usurper. (Easter brought an increase of trouble in the f [persecution of prelates, clergy, virgins, widows, I the poor, and even ordinary Catholic house- I holders. On the evening of the Sunday after Pentecost, when " the brethren " had met for worship, apart from the Ariaus, in the pre- cincts of a cemetery, a military commander, named Sebastian, a fierce-tempered Mani- 'chean, whose sympathies went with George, came to the spot with more than 3000 soldiers, , and found some virgins and others still in prayer after the general congregation had ' broken up. On their refusal to embrace Arianism, he caused them to be stripped, and beaten or wounded with such severity that ' some died from the effects, and their corpses were kept without burial. This was followed i by the banishment of sixteen bishops, doubt- less for rejecting the new-made creed ; more : than thirty fled, others were scared into ' an apparent conformity, and the vacated I churches were given over to men whose moral , disqualifications for any religious office were compensated by their profession of Arianism. Tragical as were these tidings, Athanasius still clung to his purpose of presenting himself '. before Constantius, until he learned that one ■ imperial letter had denounced him as a fugitive ' criminal who richly merited death, and an- I other had e.xhorted the two Ethiopian sove- reigns to send Frumentius to Alexandria, that j George might instruct him in the knowledge I of " the supreme God." I Then it was that .Athanasius, accepting the Sosition of a proscribed man who must needs ve as a fugitive, " turned back again," as he ; says, " towards the desert," and sought for I welcome and shelter amid the innumerable ; monastic cells. Anthony had died at the be- ginning of the year, desiring that a worn-out sheepskin cloak (the monk's usual upper dress), which when new had been the gift of .-Kthan- asius, might be returned to him (Vit. Ant. 91). As Athanasius appears to have made secret : visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some time among the recluses of Lower Egypt, but he also doubtless visited what Villemain calls " the pathless solitudes which surround Upper ATHANASIUS CI Egypt, and the monasteries and liermitages of the Thebaid." A veil of mystery was thus drawn over his life ; and the interest was heightened by the romantic incidents naturally following from the Government's attempts to track and seize him. When comparatively undisturbed, he would still be full of activities, ecclesiastical and theological. Athanasius made those six years of seclusion available for literary work of the most substantial kind, both controversial and historical. The books which he now began to pour forth were appar- ently Nvritten in cottages or caves, where he sat, like any monk, on a mat of palm-leaves, with a bundle of papyrus beside him, amid the intense light and stillness of the desert (Kings- ley's Hermits, p. 130, 19). He finished his .Apology to Constantius, a work which he had for some time in hand, and which he still hoped to be able, in better days, to deliver in the emperor's presence. He met the taunts of " cowardice " directed against him by the Arians with an Apology for his Flight. To the same period belong the Letter to the Monks, with the Arian History (not now extant as a whole), which it introduces (and as to which it is difficult to resist the impres- sion that part of it, at least, was written under Athanasius's supervision, by some friend or secretary) ; a Letter to Serapion, bp. of Thmuis, giving an account of the death of Arius, the details of which he had learned from his presbyter Macarius, while he himself was re- sident at Treves ; and, above all, the great Orations or Discourses against the Arians. These last have been described by Montfaucon as " the sources whence arguments have been borrowed by all who have since written in behalf of the Divinity of the Word." The first discourse is occupied with an exposition of the greatness of the question at issue ; with proofs of the Son's eternity and uncreateduess, with discussion of objections, and with com- ments on texts alleged in support of Arianism [i.e. Phil. ii. 9, 10 ; Ps. xlv. 7, 8 ; Heb i. 4). The second, written after some interval, pur- sues this line of comment, especially on a text much urged by Arians in the LXX version (Prov. viii. 22). The third explains texts in the Gospels, and in so doing sets forth the Christ of the church, as uniting in Himself true Godhead and true Manhood; and it then passes to the consideration of another Arian statement, that the Sonship was a result of God's mere will. Differing from other writers. Dr. Newman considers the fourth Discourse to be an undigested collection of notes or memo- randa on several heresies, principally that which was imputed to his friend Marcellus, and to persons connected with him — an imputation which Athanasius, about 360, began to think not undeserved. It may be thought by some who have no bias against the theology of the Discourses that his tender- ness towards an old associate is in striking contrast with the exuberance of objurgation bestowed on the Arian " madmen " and " foes of Christ." But not to urge that the 4th cent, had no established rules of controversial poHteness, and that the acerbity of Greek disputation and the personalities of Roman society had often too much influence on the tone of Christian argument, one must remem- 62 ATHANASIUS ber that Athanasius is not attacking all members of tlie Arian communion, but repre- sentatives of it who had been conspicuous, not for heterodoxy alone, but for secularity in its worst form, for unscrupulousness, and for violence. He followed up his Discourses by four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, of which the second briefly repeated the teaching of the Discourses, while the others were directed against a theory then reported to him by Serapion as springing up, and afterwards known as Macedonianism ; which, abandon- ing the Arian position in regard to the Son, strove with singular inconsistency to retain it in regard to the Spirit. Athanasius met this error by contending for " a Trinity real and undivided," in which the Spirit was included with the Father and the Son. The general aspect of church affairs was very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian persecution had again set in. But the defec- tion of Hosius in 357, and Liberius in 358, after hard pressure and cruel usage, from the steadfastness which Athanasius had so much admired, must have wounded him to the heart. Yet he speaks of them with character- istic and most generous tenderness, and with full recognition of the trials under which they had given way (Hist. Ar. 45, 41 ; Apol. 89 ; de Fugii, 5). In 350 the general body of Western bishops, at the council of Ariminum, were partly harassed and partly cheated into adopting an equivocal but really Arian con- fession, which was also adopted at the begin- ning of 360 by the legates of the Eastern council of Seleucia. An account of the earlier proceedings of these two councils was drawn up, in the form of a letter, by Athanasius, who, on the ground of a few words in the opening of this Letter on the Councils of Ari- minum and Seleucia, has been thought by Tillemont and Gibbon to have been present at any rate at the latter place. The treatise is remarkable for his considerateness towards those of the semi-Arians whose objections to the Nicene Creed were rather verbal than real, while the second creed of Sirmium had driven them into open hostility to the Arians properly so-called, which they had expressed in their council of Ancyrain 358. Athanasius, then expressly naming their leader, Basil of Ancyra, welcomes them as brothers who mean essentially what churchmen mean. He will not for the present urge the Horaoousion upon them. He is sure that in time thev will accept it, as securing that doctrine of Christ's essential Sonship which their own svmbol " Homoiousion " could not adequately guard [de Syn. 41). But while exhibiting this large- minded patience and forbearance he is careful to contrast the long series of Arian creeds with the one invariable standard of the orthodox : the only refuge from restless variations will be found in a frank adoption of the creed of Nicaea [ib. 32 ; cf. ad Afros, 9). On Nov. 30 the accession of Julian was formally proclaimed at Alexandria. The Pagans, in high exultation, thought that their time was come for taking vengeance on the Arian bishop, whom they had once before tumultuously expelled for oppressive and violent conduct. They rose in irresistible force, threw George into prison, and on Dec. ATHANASIUS 24 barbarously murdered him. The Arians set up one Lucius in his place ; but Julian, as if to shew his supercilious contempt for the disputes of " Galileans," or his detestation of the memory of Constantius, permitted all the bishops whom his predecessor had exiled to return ; and Athanasius, taking advantage of this edict, reappeared in Alexandria, to the joy of his people, Feb. 22, 362. One of his first acts was to hold a council at Alexandria for the settlement of several pressing questions, {a} Many bishops deeply regretted their concessions at Ariminum in 359 : how were they to be treated ? (b) It had become urgently necessary to give some advice to Paulinus and his flock at Antioch, with a view to healing the existing schism there, (c) A dispute which had arisen as to the word " hypostasis " had to be settled. (4) A correct view as to the Incarnation and the Person of Christ had to be established. The work before the council was that of harmoniz- ing and reconciling. A synodal letter, or "Tome," addressed "to the Antiochenes " {i.e. to Paulinus and his flock), and composed by Athanasius, is one of the noblest documents that ever emanated from a council. But it came too late to establish peace at Antioch. Lucifer of Caliaris had taken upon him to consecrate Paulinus as the legitimate bp. of Antioch, and so perpetuated the division which his wiser brethren had hoped to heal. The pagans of Alexandria had been rebuked by Julian for the murder of George, but he lent a ready ear to their denunciations of Athanasius as a man whose influence would destroy their religion. Julian assured them that he had never intended Athanasius to resume " what is called the episcopal throne " ; and peremptorily commanded him to leave Alexandria ; the imperial edict was communi- cated to Athanasius on Oct. 23 ( = Paophi 27, Fest. Ind., Fragm. Maff.). The faithful gathered around him weeping. " Be of good heart," he said ; " it is but a cloud ; it will soon pass." He instantly embarked to go up the Nile. But Julian's implied orders were not forgotten ; some Government agents pursued his vessel. They met a boat coming down the river, and asked for news of Athan- asius. " He is not far off," was the reply. The boat was his own — he himself, perhaps, the speaker (Theod. iii. 9). His facilities of information had given him warning of the peril, and his presence of mind had baffled it. He sailed on towards Alexandria, but con- cealed himself at Chaereu, the first station from the capital, then proceeded to Memphis, where he wrote his Festal Letter for 363, and then made his way to the Thebaid. (7) From his Fourth Exile to his Death (362-373). It was probably about this time, shortly before Easter, 363, that Athanasius was met, while approaching Hermopolis, by Theodore of Tabenne, the banks of the Nile being thronged by bishops, clergy, and monks. Night apparently favoured this demonstra- tion ; Athanasius, having disembarked, mounted an ass which Theodore led, and pur- sued his way amid a vast body of monks bearing lanterns and torches, and chanting psalms. He stayed some time at Hermopohs and Antinoe, for the purpose of preaching ; ATHANASIUS ...II prDcecdcd soutlnvarils t«> Tabcnno. At iii.l-.iitiimor, according to anotlu-r narrative, f was at Antinoe, apprehensive oi being iiiested and put to death, when Theodore iiid another abbot named Tanmion came to .v liim, and i>orsuaded him to embark with .111 in Theodore's closely covered boat, in r to conceal himself in Tabenne. Athan- . was in praver, agitated by the prospect : i.irt\Tdom, when Theodore, according to .u storv, assured him that Julian had at that , nv hour been slain in his Persian war. The i.iv of Julian's death was June 26, 363. "The cloud had passed," and Athanasius (turned by night to Alexandria. After his trrival, which was kept secret, he received a ■ r from the new emperor Jovian, desiring t> resume his functions, and to draw up •.cment of the Catholic faith. .Vthauasius ,1 ^.iice assembled a council, and framed a SNTiodal letter, in which the Nicene Creed was prabodied, its Scripturalness asserted, and the |;n"eat majoritv of Churches (including the British) referred to as professing it : Arianism ivas condemned, semi-Arianism pronounced inadequate, the Homoousion explained as •expressive of Christ's real Sonship, the co- Jequality of the Holy Spirit maintained in terms which partly anticipate the language :>f the Creed of Constantinople. On Sept. 5 ^Athanasius sailed to Antioch, bearing this letter. He was most graciously received, while the rival bp. Lucius and his companions were rebuffed with some humour and some |impatience by the blunt soldier-prince, who, ihowever, during his brief reign, shewed him- !f;elf as tolerant as he was orthodox. The [general prospects of the church must now have seemed brighter than at any time since 330. Llberius was known to have made a full declaration of orthodoxy ; and many IWestern bishops, responding to the appeals of lEusebius and Hilary of Poictiers, had eagerly jrenounced the Arim'inian Creed and professed ithe Nicene. But the local troubles of Antioch Kvere distressing ; and Athanasius, seeing no |<)ther solution, recognized their bishop Paulinus |as the true head of the Antiochene church, on |his appending to his signature of the Tome a ifull and orthodox declaration, which, accord- ling to Epiphanius (Haer. 77, 20), Athanasius Ihimself had framed. Having written his Festal Letter for 364 |at Antioch, Athanasius reached home, appar- lently, on Feb. 13, a few days before Jovian's [death. Valentinian L succeeded, and soon (afterwards assigned the Hast to his brother iValens. The Alexandrian church was not at Ifirst a sufferer by this change of monarchs ; [and 364-365 may be the probable date for the jpublication of the Life of Anthony, which i.-Vthanasius addressed " to the monks abroad," \t.e. those in Italy and Gaul. But, ere long, ihis troubles to some extent reappeared. Ac- jcording to the Egyptian documents, it was Ithe spring of 365 when Valens issued an order 'for the expulsion of all bishops who, having .been expelled under Constantius, had been 'recalled under Julian, and thereby announced that he meant to follow the Arian policv of iConstantius. On May 5 this order reached jAlexandria, and caused a popular ferment, lOnly quieted on J une 8 by the prefect's pro- ATHANASIUS fi.-l mise to refer the case of Athanasius tn the emperor. H we may combine his statement with Sozomen's (wlm, however, i>laces these events in a subsequent year), we should suj)- pose that the prefect was but biding his time ; and on the night of Oct. 5, Athanasius, having doubtless been forewarned, left his abode in the precinct of St. Dionysius's church, and took refuge in a country house near the New River. For four months the archbishop's concealment lasted, until an imperial notary came to the country house with a great multi- tude, and led .\thanasius back into his church, Feb. I (Mechir 7), 366. His quiet was not again seriously disturbed, and Athanasius was free to ilevote himself to his proper work, whether of writing or of administration. His Festal Letter for 367 contained a list of the books of Scripture which, so far as regards the New Testament, agrees precisely with our own (see, too, de Deer. 18). The canonical books are described as " the fountains of salvation, through which alone " (a mode of speaking very usual with Athanasius) " is the teaching of religion transmitted" ; a second class of books is mentioned, as "read" in church for religious edification ; the name " apocryphal " is reserved for a third class to which heretics have assigned a fictitious dig- nity (VVestcott, On the Canon, pp. 487, 520). To this period has been assigned the comment on doctrinal texts which is called a treatise On the Incarnation and against the Arians ; but its entire genuineness may be reasonably doubted. In or about 369 he held a council at Alexandria, in order to receive letters from a Roman council held under Damasus, the successor of Liberius, and also from other Western prelates, excommunicating Ursacius and Valens, and enforcing the authority of the Nicene Creed. Hereupon Athanasius, in a synodal letter addressed To the Africans, i.e. to those of the Carthaginian territory, con- trasts the " ten or more " synodical formulas of Arianism with the Nicene Creed, gives some account of its formation, and exposes the futile attempt of its present adversaries to claim authority for the later, as distinct from the earlier, proceedings of the Ariminian council. It appears that on Sept. 22, 369, Athanasius, who had in May 368 begun to rebuild the Caesarean church, laid the foundations of another church, afterwards called by his own name (Fest. Jnd.). We find him excommimicating a cruel and licen- tious governor in Libya, and signifying the act by circular letters. One of these was sent to Basil, who had just become exarch, or archbp., of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and had received, perhaps at that time, from Athan- asius, a formal notification of the proceedings of the council of 362 (Ep. 204). Basil immedi- ately announced to his own people the sentence pronounced in Egypt ; the strong sense oi church unity made such a step both regular and natural, and he wrote to assure Athan- asius that the offender would be regarded by the faithful at Caesarea as utterly alien from Christian fellowship (Ep. 60). This led to a correspondence, carried on actively in 371. Basil, who had troubles of all kinds weighing upon his spirit, sought aid in regard to one of them — the unhappy schism of Antioch [Ep. 64 ATHANASIUS 66). He wanted Athanasius to promote the recogaition by the Westerns of Meletius as rightful bp. of Antioch, and to induce Paulinus to negotiate. In the autumn Basil wrote again (Ep. 69), and the tone which he adopts towards Athanasius is very remarkable. He calls him the foremost person (literally, the summit) of the whole church, the man of " truly grand and apostohc soul, who from boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of religion " — " a spiritual father," whom he longed earnestly to see, and whose conversa- tion would amply compensate for all the sufferings of a lifetime {Ep. 69, 80, 82). But although Athanasius consented to act as a medium between Basil and the Westerns {Ep. 90), he could not take any direct part in favour of Meletius, whose rival's position he had unequivocally recognized. Nothing came of the appUcation. Athanasius was far from tolerating, in these latter years of his life, any theories which seemed definitely heterodox respecting what may be called the human side of the Incar- nation. If, in his Letter to Adelphius, he condemned a certain class of Arians, and vindicated against their cavils the adoration paid to Christ's Manhood, that is, to His one Person Incarnate ; if, in his Letter to Maximus, he denomiced those who spoke of the man Christ as simply a saint with whom the Word had become associated ; he was also, in his Letter to Eptctetus, bp. of Corinth — a tract called forth by a communication from Epictetus — most earnest against some who, while " glorying in the Nicene confession, represented Christ's body as not truly human, but formed out of the essence of Godhead. This was, in fact, the second proposition of the heresy called Apollinarian ; the first being that which had attracted the attention of the coimcil of 362, and had been disclaimed by those whom the council could examine — as to the non-existence, in Christ, of a rational soul, the Word being supposed to supply its place. These views had grown out of an unbalanced eagerness to exalt the Saviour's dignity : but the great upholders of Nicene faith saw that they were incompatible with His Manhood and His Headship, that they virtually brought back Docetism, and that one of them, at any rate, involved a debased con- ception of Deity. In the next year, 372, he combated both these propositions with " the keenness and richness of thought which dis- tinguish his writings generally " (see Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 162 ; Praef. ed. Benson, ii. 7) in two books entitled Against Apollinaris. These books are remarkable for the masterly distinctness with which the one Christ is set forth as " perfect God and perfect Man " 'i. iG) : if words occur in ii. 10 which seem at first sight to favour MonotheUtism, the context shews their mean- ing to be that the Divine will in Christ was dominant over the human ; if in the next chapter the phrase " God suffered through the flesh " is called unscriptural, the whole argument shews that he is contending against the passibihty of the Saviour's Godhead. Inexact as might be some of his phrases, the general purport of his teaching on this great subject is unmistakable ; it is, as he says in ATHANASIUS Oral. iii. 41, that Christ was " very (iod ii the flesh, and very Flesh in the Word." Ii truth, these later treatises, like the grea Discourses, exclude by anticipation both th forms of heresy, in reference to the Person an( Natures of Christ, which troubled the churcl in the next three centuries (see especially i II, ii. 10). Athanasius, in the fruits of hi work, was " in truth the Immortal" {Christ Rememhr. xxxvii. 206I : he was continuall; " planting trees under which men of a late: age might sit." It might indeed be said tha he " waxed old in his work " (Ecclus. xi. 20) But the time of work for him came to ar end in the spring of 373. The discussion; about the year of his death may be considerec as practically closed ; the Festal Index although its chronology is sometimes faulty may be considered as confirming the date 373. given in the Maffeian Fragment, sup ported by other ancient authorities, anc accepted by various writers. The exact day we may believe, was Thursday, May 2, 01 which day of the month Athanasius is vener ated in the Western church. He had sat or the Alexandrian throne, as his great successoi Cyril says in a letter to the monks of Egypt " forty-six complete years " ; had he lived t few weeks longer, the years of his episcopatt would have been forty-seven. Having recom- mended Peter, one of his presbyters, foj election in his place, he died tranquilly in hiv I own house, " after many struggles," as Rufinus. ! says (ii. 3), " and after his endiurance had woE' ' many a crown," amid troubles which Tille- mont ventures to call a continual martyrdom Such was the career of Athanasius the Great, as he began to be called in the next generation. Four points, perhaps, oughl- especially to dwell in our remembrance : {a] the deep religiousness which illuminated al! his studies and controversies by a sense of his relations as a Christian to his Redeemer ; (6) the persistency, so remarkable in one whose natural temperament was acutely sensitive; (c) the combination of gifts, " firmness with: discretion and discrimination," as Newman' expresses it, which enabled him, while never turning aside from his great object, to be, as Gregory Nazianzen applies the apostolic phrase, " all things to all men " ; and in close connexion with this, {d) the affectionate- ness which made him so tender as a friend, and so active as a peacemaker — which won for him such enthusiastic loyalty, and endowed the great theologian and church ruler with the powers peculiar to a truly lovable man. That he was not flawless, that his words could be somewhat too sharp in controversy, or some- what unreal in addressing a despot, that he was not always charitable in his interpretation of his adversaries' conduct, or that his casu- istry, on one occasion, seems to have lacked the healthy severity of St. Augustine's — this may be, and has been, admitted ; but it is not extravagant to pronounce his name the greatest in the church's post-apostolic history. In 1698 appeared the great Benedictine ed. of his works, enriched by the Life from the pen of Montfaucon, who in 1707 published, in one of the volumes of his Nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecormn Collectio, additional remains collected by his industry. The work Athanasius fi\ the " Titles of the Psahns " was edited by ,sic. Aiit'iielli at Rome, in 1746 ; and in 1777 : |ppi"ar«y Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace. The Orations [gainst Arius, with an account of the life of [kthanasius by W. Bright, are pub. by the I'larendon Press, as also his Historical Writings [ccording to the Benedictine text, with intro. IV W. Bri-^ht. A cheap popular Life of ithanasius by R. W. Bush is pub. by S.P.C.K. .1 their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; and a cheap rans. of the Orations in " A. and M. Theol. .ib." (C.riltith). [w.b.] , Athanasius (l), bp. of Anagastus in Cilicia ieeunda and metropolitan, a disciple of St. Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. iii. 15), jeckoned by .\rius, in his letter to Eusebius J\icom., among the bishops who coincided yith him in doctrine (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The jeat .\thanasius {de Synod, p. 886) accuses iiim of having, previous to the council of |Sicaea, written blasphemies equal to those of jVrius, of which he gives a specimen. He is l-aid by Le (Juien, on the authority of the Lib. Synod. Graec. to have supported Arius at the touncil of Xicaea. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. is) tells us that when Aetius was expelled from (lis master's house, after his unlucky victory n argument, Athanasius received him and [ead the Gospels with him. [e.v.] I Athanasius (2), an Arian bp. who succeeded j^hilip in the see of Scythopolis, c. 372. He is i:harged by Epiphanius with pushing his Arian ,enets to the most audacious impiety, asserting I hat the Son and Holy Spirit were creatures, and iiad nothing in common with the Divine nature 'Epiph. Haer. Ixxiii. c. 37, p. 885). [k.v.] 1 Athanasius (3), bp. of Perrha, a see dependent tn the Syrian Hierapolis; present at the council >l Ephesus, 431, supporting Cyril of Alex- ;indria. Grave accusations, brought against ,um by his clergy, led him to resign his see. Through the intervention on his behalf of ;-*roclus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alex- mdria, Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, ummoned a council to consider the matter. Athanasius, refusing to appear, was unani- .nously condemned by default and deposed .rom his bishopric, to which Sabinianus was |onsecrated. After " the Robber Synod " )f Ephesus, A.D. 449, had made Dioscorus of Alexandria the temporary ruler of the Eastern |-hurch, Sabinianus was in his turn deposed, ind Athanasius reinstated at Perrha. Sabini- juius appealed to the council of Chalcedon, ATHENAGORAS (;.') A.D. 451, where both he and his rival signed as bp. of Perrii.i. His c.ise w.is tuilv heard, anil it was determined that the original charges against him should be investigateil by Maximus at .\ntioch. We are in complete ignorance of the issue of this investigation. (Labbe, Cone, , iv. 717-754 ; Libcratus Diac. in lireviario. i Labbe, v. 762 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 479 ; Christ. Lupus, ii.) [k.v.] Athanasius (4), bp. of Ancyra in N. Galatia (a.d. 360-360). His father, who bore the same name, was a man of high family and great learning, and had held important offices in the State (iOvuyv Kai jrtiXfwc aox°-^ 5ifiiOvvavTo%) ; but was reputed harsh and unfatherly to his children. This rumour, reaching St. Basil's ears, led him to write a friendly remonstrance, and hence arose a correspondence of which one letter is preserved (£/>. 24). Tiie son .\thanasius was raised to the see of Ancyra by the .\rian Acacius of Cacsarea, through whose influence his jiredccessor Basilius had been deposed at a synod held at Constantinople A.D. 360 (Soz. iv. 25 ; Philost. v. i). But not- withstanding this inauspicious beginning, he gave unquestionable proofs of his orthodoxy by taking an active part in tlie Synod of Tyana (a.d. 367), at which the Nicene symbol was accepted (Soz. vi. 12). J3y St. Basil he is commended as " a bulwark of orthodoxy " (Ep. 25), and Gregory Nyssen praises him as " valuing the truth above everything " (c. Eunom. i. ii. 292). Owing to some misunder- standing, however, Athanasius had spoken in very severe terms of St. Basil, misled, as Basil conjectures, by the fact that some heretical writings had been fathered upon him ; and the bp. of Caesarea sends an affectionate letter of remonstrance (Ep. 25), in which he speaks of .\thanasius in the highest terms. At his death Basil writes a letter of condolence to the church of .Ancyra, on the loss of one who was truly " a pillar and foundation of the church " (Ep. 29). This seems to have happened a.d. 368 or 369 (see Garnicr, Basil. Op. iii. p. ixxvii. seq.). [l.] Athenagoras.— I. Life.— There is scarcely one catalogue of the ancient writers of the church wherein we find mention of Athen- agoras or his works. He is not noticed by Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, or Suidas. But in a fragment of the book of Methodius, bp. of Tyre (3rd cent.), de Resurrectione Anim- arum against Origen, there is an unmistakable quotation from the Apology (c. 24, p. 27 b) with the name of Athenagoras appended. This fragment is given by Epiphanius (Haer. 64, c. 21) and Photius (Cod. 224, 234). Scanty as this information is, it yet assures us of the existence of the Apology in the 3rd cent, and its ascription to Athenagoras. Much more is told us by Phihppus Sidetes, deacon of Chry- sostom (5th cent.), in a fragment preserved by Nicephorus Callistus (Dodwell, Diss, in Irenaeum, 429) to this effect : " Athenagoras was the first head of the school at Alexandria, flourishing in the times of Hadrian and An- toninus, to whom also he addressed his Apol- ogy for the Christians ; a man who embrac ed Christianity while wearing the garb of a philosopher, and presiding over the academic school. He, before Celsus, was bent on writing against the Cliristians ; and, studying 66 ATHENAGORAS the divine Scriptures in order to carry on the contest with the greater accuracy, was thus himself caught by the all-holy Spirit, so that, like the great Paul, from a persecutor he became a teacher of the faith which he persecuted." Philippus says, continues Nice- phorus, " that Clemens, the writer of the Stromata, was his pupil, and Pantaenus the pupil of Clemens." But Phihppus's statement about Pantaenus is not true, according to Clemens and Eusebius ; his character as an historian is severely criticized, and his book pronounced valueless bv Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. Eccl. vii. 27) and'Photius (Cod. 35, p. 7, Bekker) ; and his assertion that the Apology was addressed to Hadrian and Antoninus is contradicted by its very inscription. Never- theless, as he was a pupil of Rhodon (head of the school in the reign of Theodosius the Great) he may be supposed to have had some facts as the groundwork of what he has said. The only other source of information about Athenag'oras is the inscription of his Apology with such internal evidence as may be gath- ered from his works themselves. The inscrip- tion runs thus : " The embassy (irpeulSeia) of Athenagoras of Athens, a Christian philoso- pher, concerning Christians, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, and, greatest of all, philosophers." Without at present considering the pecuhar difficulties involved in this inscription (of which below), we learn from it in general that Athenagoras was an Athenian and a philosopher, which character and profession he evidently retained after his conversion. His connexion with Athens (probably his birth there) and pro- fession of philosophy are thus substantiated ; and the manner in which he became converted to Christianity may very well have been as described by Philippus, whose account that he was head of the Academics is probably but an exaggeration of the fact that he had be- longed to that sect. That he was ever leader of the Catechetical school of Alexandria cannot be definitely proved. In the Commentatio of Clarisse, § 8, is the acute conjecture that the treatise de Resurrectione was written at Alexandria rather than Athens, from c. 12, p. 52 A, where the builder of a house is repre- sented as making stalls for his camels ; and on a supposed Alexandrian tinge in the philo- sophy of Athenagoras vide Brucker (Hist. Crit. Philosophiae, iii. 405 seq.). Of his death nothing is known, the idea that he was martyred apparently arising from a confusion between him and Athenogenes. That the Apology was really intended to be seen and read by the emperors is obvious ; how it reached them is less clear ; we are hardly entitled to assert that it was in anv formal or pubUc manner delivered to them by Athen- agoras himself, an idea which may be due to the title it bears, of Upea^eia, or " Embassy." Upea^da, however, according to Stephanus (Thesaur. Ling. Graec. iii. col. 543), is occasion- ally used for an apology, intercession, or deprecation. II. Genuine Works. — These are, (i) the Apology ; (2) the Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead. (i) Apology. Genuineness.— The testimonies ATHENAGORAS to this work are the inscription which it bears, and the quotation by Methodius given above. Some indeed have supposed that when Jerome speaks of an apology delivered by Justin Martyr to Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he refers (since these ob- tained the empire after Justin's death) to the Apology of Athenagoras and attributes it to Justin ; but it appears that he intends Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Mosheim, Disseit. ad Hist. Eccles. pertinent, i. 279), to whoia Justin's Lesser Apology was given (vid. Pn- legomena to Maranus's Justin, pt. iii. c. 8, § 4, pp. 93 sqq.). Attempts to prove the work in question to be that of Justin (vid. Le Moyne, Varia sacra., ii. 171), or of a later author (vid. Semler, Introduction to Baumgarten's Theolog. Sireitigkeiten, ii. 70 note) have alike failed. There is nothing whatever in the writings of Athenagoras unsuitable to their assigned age ; and Athenagoras's name was not sufficiently known to have been selected for the author of a supposititious book. Date. — This is a difficult question ; some have taken the Commodus of the inscription for Lucius Aelius Aurelius Verus (d. 169), son- in-law and brother of Marcus Antoninus. But Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, Antoninus's son and successor, must be intended ; for Verus dropped the name of Commodus after obtaining a share in the government, and could never have been called Sarmaticus ; for Sarmatia was not conquered till after his death. Mommsen, following Tentzel, but without MS. authority, would read Yep/xaviKoh for ' App-evLaKo'is. As little right had Com- modus to the title of " philosopher." Athen- agoras may have only intended to include the son in the honours of the father. At all events, the illustration (at c. 18, p. 17 d) of the Divine government, taken from that of the two emperors, father and son, seems conclusive. We have also allusions to the profound peace of the empire, appropriate only between a.d. 176, when Avidius Crassus's insurrection was crushed, and a.d. 178, when the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars occurred. The Apology cannot well have been of later date than a.d. 177, since in that year arose the fearful persecution of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons, upon the accusations brought by their slaves ; whereas in c. 35, p. 38 B, Athenagoras declares that no slaves of Christians had ever charged their masters with the crimes popularly imputed to them ; nor is there any allusion whatever to this persecution, which would hardly have been passed over in silence. We therefore conclude that the Apology was written be- tween the end of a.d. 176 and that of a.d. 177. Analysis. — The Apology consists of cate- gorical answers to the three charges usually brought against the Christians, of (a) atheism, (b) incest, and (c) cannibaUsm. (a) They wor- ship one God, and can give a reason why. The philosophers have held like views ; Poly- theism and its worship are absurd, modern, and the work of demons. (6^ Incest is most contrary to their pure and even ascetic life. (c) They are even more humane than the heathen, condemning abortion, infanticide, and gladiatorial games as murder. (2) Treatise on the Resurrection Genuine- . ATHENAGORAS nea and Date. — There is no iiidepciideiit external evidence for the aiithorsliip of this work ; but there is uo reason whatever to .iouht that, as its inscription informs us, it •r .m the pen of Athenagoras. It closely s with the .-f/'o/ogy in style and thought, ill that has been said above of the internal !. lice for the genuineness of the former k applies equally to this. That such a luse was in Athenagoras's mind when he wrote the Apology appears from the words near its close, c. 36, p. 39 c, " let the argument upon the Resurrection stand over " ; from which words we may not unfairly gather that the Treatise on the Resurrection shortly fol- lowed the former work. This is the only clue to its date which we possess. From the closing sentences of c. 23 (p. 66 c) it seems that it was intended as a lecture. " VVc have not made it our aim to leave nothing unsaid that our subject contained, but sinnmarily to point out to those who came together what view ought to be taken in regard to the Resurrection " must allude not merely to a few friends who might happen to be present when the book was read, but to a regular audience. From a reference, c. i, p. 41 u, to an occasional mode for arranging his argu- ments, it may be supposed that Athenagoras was in the habit of delivering public lectures upon Christianity. The arrangement, too, and peculiar opening of the treatise decidedly favour the view that it was a lecture, some- what enlarged or moditied for publication. Atialysis. — The work consists of two parts : (i) The removal of the objections (i) that God wants the power {2) or the will to raise the dead, (i) He does not want the power to do it, either through ignorance or weakness — as Athenagoras proves from the works of creation ; defending his positions against the philosophic objections, that the bodies of men after dissolution come to form part of other bodies ; and that things broken cannot be re- stored to their former state. (2) God wants not the will to raise the dead — for it is neither unjust to the raised men, nor to other beings ; nor unworthy of Him — which is shewn from the works of creation, (ii) Arguments for the Resurrection, (i) The final cause of man's creation, to be a perpetual beholder of the Divine wisdom. (2) Man's nature, which requires perpetuity of existence in order to attain the true end of rational life. (3) The necessity of the Divine judgment upon men in body and soul, (a) from the Providence, lb) from the justice of God. (4) The ultimate end of man's being, not attainable on earth. III. Athenagoras as a Writer. — To most of the apologists Athenagoras is decidedly superior. Elegant, free from superfluity of language, forcible in style, he rises occasion- ally into great power of description, and his reasoning is remarkable for clearness and cogency ; e.g. his answer to the heathen argument, that not the idols, but the gods represented, are really honoured. His treat- ment of the Resurrection is for the most part admirable. Even where the defective science of the day led him into error, e.g. in answering the question, apparently so difficult, as to the assimilation of the materials of one human body into another the line taken is one that ATHENAGORAS 67 shews no little thought and ability ; and his whole writings indii .ite a philosophic mind, which amply justifies the title given to him in the inscription of his two works. His style, however, is not unfrequently somewhat obscured by difficult elliptic or parenthetical passages, and anacolutha (for examples of which see the Apology, c. i, p. 2 c ; c. 20, p. 19 B ; c. 22, p. 23 B ; and de Resurr. c. 18, p. 60 d). Among his peculiar words and phrases, Clarisse notices his use of dVdv in the sense of ducere, to think, and rd fiTLavfi.ji(dr)K6Ta 0f(^ for the attributes of God. IV. His Philosophy. — Mosheim represents Athenagoras as having been the first of the Eclectics. It is far more true to say that he shared in the eclecticism which then pervaded all i)hilosophy. That he had been a I'latonist ajipcars, on the whole, from his continual reference to I'lato and the thoroughly Pla- tonic view which on many points pervades his works. We easily recognize this view in his language about matter and the souls, angels, natures sensible and intelligible, and the con- templation of God as the end of man's being ; and also in that referring to the Son of God as the Logos and Creator (except that this is not at all peculiar to Athenagoras), more especially in his caUing the Word " idea (or archetype) and energy " in the work of Creation. He also appears to allude slightly to the doctrine of reminiscences [de Resurr. c. 14, p. 55 a). The Platonism of Athenagoras was modified, however, by the prevailing eclecticism (cf. e.g. the Peripatetic doctrine of the mean, so alien to Plato, Resurr. c. 21, p. 64 b), and still more, of course, by his reception of Christian- ity, which necessitated the abandonment of such views as the unoriginated nature of the soul. With all this agrees excellently so much of Philippus Sidetes's account as connects Athenagoras with the Academics ; whose Platonism was precisely such as is here de- scribed. Allusions to the other philosophers are abundant ; e.g. to Aristotle and the Peri- patetics, Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A ; c. 16, p. 15 D ; to the Stoics, ib. c. 6, p. 7 b ; to the Cyrenaics and Epicureans, Resurr. c. 19, p. 62 b. We see from Apol. c. 7, p. 8 a, that he regarded the Gentile philosophers as possessing some measure of Divine light in their minds, but unable thereby to come to the full know- ledge of God, because this could only be ob- tained by revelation, which they never sought. V. Theology, etc. — Athenagoras's proof of the Divine unity rests on the propositions, expressed or implied, that God is perfect, self- existent, uncompounded ; the Creator, Sus- tainer, and Ruler of the universe. Were there more gods than one, they could not co-exist and co-work as a community of beings similar to each other, in the same sphere ; for things self-existent and eternal cannot be like a number of creatures formed all on one pattern, but must be eternally distinct and unlike. They could not be parts of one whole, for God has no parts. There could be no place for another God in connexion with this universe, for the Creator is over and around His own works. Another God, confined to some other universe of his own, could not concern us ; and so would be but a finite being. The Son of God. — In God, since He is an 68 ATHENAGORAS eternal, rational Mind, there dwelt from eter- nity the " Logos " (" Reason," " Expression," or " Word ") as His Son, and in the Son dwelt the Father. To bring matter into existence, and afterwards give it form and order, the Divine Word " came forth " (i.e. the eternal Son assumed, towards the finite, the office and relation of " the Word " or Mani- festor of God), to be the Archetype and Effectuating Power of creation [Apol. c. lo, p. 10 d). His Incarnation is only indirectly mentioned, in the supposition at c. 21, p. 21 d (ib.), of God assuming flesh according to divine dispensation. The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation from God [Apol. c. 10, p. 10 d), flowing forth and returning as a rav from the sun. It has hence been much disputed whether Athen- agoras believed the Blessed Spirit to be a distinct Person, or not. His expressions greatly resemble those used by some whom Justin condemns for their denial of the per- sonaUty of the Son : " They say that this virtue is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, as the sunUght on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens " {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, p. 338 b). But it must be remembered that the apologists present the actings and offices of the three Blessed Persons of the Godhead in creation, etc., rather than Their eternal subsistence ; and of necessity do this in a form inteUigible to a heathen mind, yet so as not to be confounded with polytheism. It is not doubted that Athenago'ras held the personaUty of the Father, but with " God the Father, and God the Son" [Apol. c. 10, p. 11 a) he joins as third, the Holy Spirit ; so also c. 12, p. 62 d, and again c. 24, p. 26 d. That two Divine Persons and an impersonal emanation should be thus enumerated together by so philosophic a writer as Athenagoras is not conceivable. The angels, too — indubitably personal beings — are mentioned as holding a place after the Trinity, in Christian theology (c. 10) ; and it is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited above from Justin, angels as well as the Word are described by the persons whom that writer is condemning as temporary appearances ; as if it were the Sadducees, or some similar J ewish sect, of which he is speaking. We are, there- fore, decidedly of opinion that the personality of the Holy Spirit is held by Athenagoras ; cf. however, Clarisse. Man he holds to be composed of body and soul, the latter immortal, with spiritual powers of its own {Apol. c. 27, p. 31 a) ; but assigns the rational judgment not to the soul alone, but to the whole compound being, man ; perhaps implying that in the actings and expression of thought both the mind and the bodily organs share. Hence he shews that the soul without the body is imperfect ; that only when embodied can man be justly judged, or render to God perfect service, in a heavenly life. The sin and misery of man are described, in the Platonic manner, as entanglement with matter {Apol. c. 27, p. 30 c), and missing the true aim of his existence (Resurr. c. 25, p. 68 b) ; which is said to be the state of the majority, a prevalence of evil which he con- nects with the influence of the demons, i.e. ATHENAGORAS of fallen angels, or their offspring by human wives, a view common with the apologists. The evil angels he regards as having fallen bv misuse of free will, as did also man ; cf. Apol. c. 25, p. 29 B. Of infants he remarks {Resurr. 614, p- 55 d) that they need no judgment, inasmuch as they have done neither good nor evil. The nature of the scheme of redemption is not treated of by Athenagoras. VI. Was Athenagoras a Montanist ? — This idea was suggested by Tillemont, who founds it upon two points in the opinions of Athen- agoras, his account of prophecy, and his abso- lute condemnation of second marriages. In the Apology, c. 9, p. 9 d, Athenagoras's view of inspiration is thus given : " who " {i.e. the prophets) " rapt in mind out of themselves by the impulse of the Spirit of God, uttered the things with which they were inspired ; the Spirit using them as if a flute player were breathing into his flute." With this has been compared the language of Montanus (Epi- phanius Panar. Haer. 48, c. 4, p. 405), where the prophet is said to be as a lyre, the Spirit like the plectrum. So Tertullian, Against Marcion, c. 22. Yet similar language is found in Justin {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 115, p. 343 a) ; and Athenagoras may only mean that the prophet was carried beyond himself by the Holy Spirit, and that the words uttered were not his own. The severe condemnation ol second marriage, in the works of Athenagoras, is doubtless a point of contact with the Mon- tanists ; but the same view is very common with the Greek Fathers {vid. Hefele's Beitrdge. vol. i. lect. 2). Moreover, of the authority and office of the Paraclete, in the sense attributed, to Montanus, there is no trace in the writings of Athenagoras. VII. Quotations of Scripture, Early Writers etc. — The inspiration of Scripture is strongl) stated by Athenagoras, e.g. Apol. c. 9, p. 9 d. He is seldom careful to quote exactly, so thai it is not always certain what version is em- ployed ; probably the Septuagint throughout From the N.T. he often quotes or borrows phrases, without mentioning whence they come. It is treated as authoritative amongsi Christians ; its maxims being used shewing their discipline and practice {vid. Lardner Credibility ; Clarisse, Athenag. § 55). It has been disputed whether Athenagora: refers to other Christian writers, especially thi Apology of Justin Martyr, which some con sider him to have made the foundation of hi own. Certainly the resemblance betweei them seems too great to be the result o accident alone. Both J ustin and Athenagora urged that Christians were unconvicted o any crime, that the mere name does no deserve punishment, and that they were n( more Atheists than the poets and the philo sophers ; and both, in a similar manner, shev the unworthiness of sacrificial worship. The; give very much the same view of the Christiai way of life ; and both lay great stress 01 chastity, and on the confining of marriage ti its sole end, the begetting of children. Nearl; the same account of the fall of the angels i found in both : the same books are quoted often the same passages ; by both the ver; same phrases are occasionally employed This correspondence is especially seen betweei' ATTICUS the exordium of Justin's first Apoln/iy and that of Athenagoras. Hence Clarisse infers \Comm. in Athenag. § 57) that Athenagoras intended to rearrange and epitomize the work of his predecessor. In the treatise On the Resurrection, c. S, p. 48 c, is an apparent imitation of Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c. 6, p. 146 n. VIII. Editions. — A good ed. of Athenagoras is that of Otto (Jena, 1857) ; its text is based on the three earliest MSS. (viz. the Cod. Paris. CDLI., Cod. Paris. CI.XXIV'., and Cod. Ar- gentoratensis), with which the rest have been collated, some for the first time ; the most recent is bv E. Schwartz. Leipz. i8qi {Texte utid Untersidchungen, iv. 2). There is an Eng. trans, in the Antc-\icene Fathers. IX. Sf>urious ll'or^s. — From a careless ex- pression of desner, in reference to the books of Antoninus, Ilepi rwv ei's eavrSi', a notion arose of the existence, amongst Gesner's books, of a work by Athenagoras with the above title ; an idea which, though wholly erroneous, was entertained by Scultatus, and at one time bv Tentzel. with some others. About the close of the i6th cent, there appeared a French romance, entitled Dn vray et par/ait .imour, purporting to be a work of Athenagoras, trans, by M. Fum6e, Seigneur dc S. Geuillac. Its many anachronisms and whole character prove it, however, the work of some later author, probably Fumee him- self. Certainly no Greek original has ever been produced. The following may be consulted : Clarisse, Comm. in A then. ; Hefele, Beitrdge ; Mohler, Patrol.; I. Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ; L. Amould, deApol. Athen. (Paris, iSgS). [s.m.] Attlcus, archbp. of Constantinople, suc- ceeding Arsacius in March 406. He died Oct. 10, 426. Born at Scbaste in Armenia, he early embraced a monastic life, and re- ceived his education from some Macedonian monks near that place. Removing to Con- stantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, was ordained presbyter, and soon became known as a rising man. He proved himself one of Chrysostom's most bitter adversaries. Ifnot. as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very leading part in carrying it into execution. The organization of the s\Tiod of the Oak owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took place June lo, 404. His successor, the aged Arsacius, died Nov. 5, 405. Four months of intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus. Vigorous measures were at once adopted by Atticus in conjunction with the other members of the triumvirate to which the Eastern church had been subjected, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An imperial rescript was obtained imposing the severest penalties on all who dared to reject the communion of the patriarchs. A large number of the bishops of the East persevered in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecu- tion ; while even the inferi(jr clergy and laity were compelled to keep themselves in conceal- ment, or to fly the country. The small minority of Eastern bishops who for peace's sake deserted Chrysostom's cause were made to f«el the guilt of having once supported it, ATTILA 69 being compelled to ltat. Ati. ii. 10; Bede, Vit. St. Ctitlib., r the name as above. The name .•\urelius . a >t given by Possidius, nor is it ever used s;. iby Augustine himself nor by any of his cor- Jit j-cspondents. But the Benedictine editors k [tind it in the earliest MS. titles of his works, tj land it is probably authentic. c § 2. Materials for Bioi^raphy. — These are » [exceptionally ample. For his first thirty- It jthree years we have, in the Confessions, the t most perfect of religious autobiographies (see t below, § 8, ad init.). The word " Confessions " ; includes not only the idea of self-accusation, t {but also that of thanksgiving (see IX. vi. con- . Ifiteor tibi dona tua, and the use of confiteor in E ithe Vulgate Psalter). For his career as a w Christian and a bishop, we possess an admir- r, [ably simple and graphic life by his pupil and {friend Possidius, bp. of Calamis. The writings and correspondence of Augustine himself copiously supplement the narrative. The Benedictine editors have worked up the whole of the material into a very accurate biography in eight books. It fills 513 columns of the Patr. Lat., and leaves little to be added by others. (See below, § 17.) § 3. Birth and Early Years (354-373). — .\ugustine was born at Thagaste in Numidia Proconsular is, on Xov. 13, 354 (for evidence as to this date, see Bencd. Life in Patr. Lat. I. 118). His father Patricius, a jovial, sensual, passionate man, and till near the end of his life a heathen, was one of the curiales of the town, but without large means. His mother Monoica was a Christian by parentage, con- viction, and character. Augustine acknow- ledged (de Vit. Beat. i. 6) that he owed his all to her ; conversely we can trace to her anxious care for her son's spiritual well-being a distinct deepening of her own character (see Conf.W.m.subfin.; IX. viii. ix.). From his mother he received the elements of Christian teaching, and, as he tells us, a devotion to the very name of Jesus Christ which his later spiritual wanderings never wholly e.xtin- I guished, and which forbade him to find satis- faction in any writings which lacked it {Conf. III. iv. 3). As a child he had a severe illness, and demanded baptism. His mother had agreed to allow it ; but when he recovered, in accordance with the then prevailing dread of post-baptismal sin, she put off his baptism to riper years. Augustine was one of several children (we read of his brother Navigius, Conf. IX. xi., de Beat. Vit. i. 6 ; a sister, Ep. an*; nieces, Possid. xxvi. ; nephew Patricius AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 71 and nieces. Serin. 35()'i, see. Honed. Life, I. i. 4). He early shewed signs of pre-eminent ability, and his parents, both of whom enter- tained the ordinary parental ambitions, found means to send him to school at the neigh- bouring town of Madaura. Here, though ho found the study of (Ireek distasteful, he made good progress ; in fact it became clear that he was ripe for the higher schools of Carthage, and he was withdrawn from Madaura. The difficulty of providing the means for his studies at the more expensive and distant capital kept him at home for a year (369-370). He laments bitterly the comjiany he kept and the habits into whicli lie fell at this period. The boyish freak of rnbi)iiig a pear-tree with his companions weighed heavily on his mind in later years (Conf. II. iv. ix.). He tells us, however, with sliame, that in order not to be outdone by his companions he boasted of licentious acts which he had not committed. This may modify our natural inferences from the self-accusing language of the Confessions. At last, aided by their wealthy and benevo- lent neighbour Romanianus, his parents were able to send him to Carthage. Here, at the age of sixteen, Augustine began his " univer- sity " life, as a student of Rhetoric. Again he speaks with an agony of remorse of his life as a student. It is certain that he contracted an irregular union, and in 372 he became the father of a son, Adeodatus. But he remained faithful to his mistress until the very eve of his conversion, and watched over his son's educa- tion and character. Eventually father and son were baptized together (see below, § 6 ; also cf. Conf. VI. xv. 25). We must infer that his life was on the whole above the average level of student life in Carthage. He tells us that the " best set " among them were given to brutal horse-play, directed especially against shy freshmen ; but although he associated with these " eversores," he took no part in their wild doings. In 371 his father had died, but, aided once more by the kindness of Romanianus, Mon- nica was able still to keep her son at Carthage. Ambition for social success, and for a future career at the bar, rather than any deeper motive, led him to pursue his studies with ardour. But in his nineteenth year, while reading Cicero's Hortensius, he became deeply impressed with the supreme value of Wisdom, as contrasted with the vain hopes and fleeting opinions of the world. From this time on- ward he is a restless seeker after Truth {Conf. III. iv.). His first impulse was toward the Scriptures, but their simplicity repelled him ; " they seemed to me to be far inferior to the dignity of Tully." § 4. Manicheism (373-383). — A baffled in- quirer, he was attracted by the Manichean system, which appears to have been actively pushed in Africa at this period. This is not the place for a description of Manicheism. From .\ugustine's many allusions to its tenets, it appears to have been a strange medley of dualism and materialism, asceticism and licence, theosophy and rationalism, free- thought and superstition. What specially attracted Augustine appears to have been the high moral pretensions of the sect, their criti- cism of Scripture difficulties, and their explana- 72 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS tion of the origin of evil by the assumption of an independent evil principle. For nine years (373-382, Conf. IV. L, de Util. Cred. 2) Augustine was an ardent Manichean. He brought over his friends Alypius and Honor- atus, and his patron Romanianus, to the same convictions, and delighted in controversy with Catholics. He remained an " auditor " only. The " electi " were bound to strict continence, and Augustine was increasingly conscious of the chasm between his ideal and his practice. " Make me chaste, but not yet, "was his prayer during this period of his hfe {Conf. VIII. vii.). Augustine completed his studies, and returned to Thagaste as a teacher of grammar. His mother, overwhelmed with horror at his new opinions, refused to receive him at home. At first, therefore, he hved with Romanianus. Monnica's prayers were answered by a con- soling dream {Conf. III. xi.) and a friend, a bishop, himself a convert from Manicheism, whom she entreated to argue with her son, while wisely refusing her request, dismissed her with the words, " It cannot be that the son of those tears of yours should be lost." She accepted the words as a voice from Heaven, and received Augustine into her household. The death of a dear friend — Augustine was a man of warm friendships {Conf. IV. ix.) — moved him to leave Thagaste, and return, as a teacher of Rhetoric, to Carthage. Here he studied zealously, devoting attention to the " liberal arts," astronomy, and other sub- jects, and lived a life of cultivated society and successful literary effort. He tells us of a prize poem which won a crown in the theatre from the proconsul Vindicianus, a wise old phvsician who convinced him (but see Con/. Vli. vi.) of the futility of astrology {Conf. IV. iii. ; this apparently occurred at Carthage). About this time he wrote a work in two or three books, de Pulcro et Apto, which he in- scribed to Hierius, a professor of Rhetoric at Rome, whom he had come to admire by reputation. These books he did not preserve'; they appear to have been his first. Mean- while, he began to be less satisfied with the Manichean view of existence ; these mis- givings were intensified by disillusion in regard to the morals of the electi (de Moribus Man. 68 sqq.). But his Manichean friends urged him to await the arrival at Carthage of Faust- us, a " bishop " of the sect, who enjoved a reputation for brilliant ability and learning, and who could be trusted to resolve all his doubts. But when the great Faustus appeared, Augustine soon discovered him to be a very ordinary person, " of charming manner and pleasant address, who said just what the others used to say, but in a much more agreeable style" {Conf. V. iii. 6). When, after his addresses to the crowd, Augustine laid before him some of his doubts, his mediocritv was transparent. " He knew that he did not know, and was not ashamed to confess the fact . . . and for this I liked him all the better." But he liked the system all the less ; and without formally separating from the Manicheans, he adopted an " academic " suspense of judgment in regard to the opinions he had hitherto adopted ; henceforth he held them provisionallv, pending the discovery of something better {de Vii. Beat. i. 4). AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS § 5. Rome. Philosophy (383-386). — MainU in disgust at the rough and disorderly student; of Carthage {Conf. V. viii.), Augustine now migrated to Rome. With bitter self-reproacl he tells us of the deceit by means of which h( left his mother, who had followed him tc Carthage, behind {Conf. V. viii.). At Rome his host was a Manichean, Alypius and othei Manichean friends surrounded him, and in 3 severe illness he received the greatest kindness from them all. But the students of Rome dis- appointed Augustine. They were less rude, but also less honest, than those of Carthage, especially in the matter of payment of theii fees {Conf. V. xi.). Presently (about the summer of 384) Symmachus, the Praefectus Urbi, was commissioned by the Milanese to find them a professor of Rhetoric. Augustine, by the aid of his Manichean friends, obtained the post, and travelled, at the public expense, to Milan. Here he was attracted by the elo- quence of Ambrose, then at the height of his fame, and soon made his acquaintance. " I began to love him, not at first as a teacher of the truth, which I despaired of finding in Thy Church, but as a fellow-creature who was kind to me." Contemptuous of the subject-matter of his sermons, Augustine listened to them as an interested professional critic. " I cared not to understand what he said, but only to hear how he said it." But it was impossible to keep form and substance wholly apart, and by degrees he began to realize that the case for Catholic Christianity was not wholly beneath discussion. This was especially the case with regard to the O.T., a principal target for Manichean ridicule. The allegorical method of exegesis by which Ambrose explained every difficulty struck away the substratum of literalism upon which Manichean objections were based. " For while I read those Scrip- tures in the letter, I was slain in the spirit." But though one main foundation of his Mani- cheism was thus giving way, the materialistic presuppositions remained. " Had I been able to conceive of a spiritual substance, all their devices would have been broken, but this as yet I found impossible." He remained in a state of suspense ; his philosophic position was that of the " New Academy," one of pure negation. However, pending' further hght, he resumed the position he had occupied in boyhood of a catechumen in the Catholic church {Conf. V. xiv.). Alypius. who was in legal practice, had accompanied him to Milan, and presently their friend Nebridius joined them. Monnica, probably accompanied by his brother Navigius, soon followed her son to Milan {Conf. VI. ix.). The friends appear {Conf. VIII. viii.) to have hired a roomy house and garden. Augustine's worldly prospects seemed excellent, a career of official distinction was opening before him {Conf. \T. xii.) ; his mother, hoping that if would lead to his bap- tism, encouraged him in the selection of a wife. But two years had to pass before the lady was of age {Conf. VI. xiii.). Meanwhile his mis- tress was dismissed {ib. xv.), to his and her great grief, and Augustine took another. Augustine was now thirty vears of age. He had almost wholly shaken off Manicheism, and was, as his mother saw, steadily gravitating towards the Catholic church. His successful AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS and intrrosting work, hniiourable position, and delightful social surroiiiulitigs made his lot outwardly enviable. But he pronounces, and apparently with some truth, that at this I period he touched his lowest moral level (Conf. 1 VI. xvii.. VII. i., VIII. v.). .\t any rate ' ( the contrast between his actual life and his I ! habitual idealism was never more painfully f realized. His ideal was the philosophic life, ' i and but for his matriintMiial plans and his still u five ambition, he would probably have luecl his frii'iuis in foundinR a small philo- j>hir coininunitv with a comnu^n purse and ii.'uschold {Conf.' VI. xiv. ; f. Academ. II. 11. 4, lie Beat. Vit. i. 4, ne in philosophiae i^rciuium celeritcr advolarem, uxoris honor- . isque illecebra detinebar). But his cnthu- j siasm burned low (c. Acad. II. ii. 5), until it I was kindled afresh by his study of the Platonic I philosophy. A friend (apparently Theodorus, who became consul in 309 — see Retr. I. ii. Displicet autem, etc., and Conf. VII. ix. immanissimo typho turgidum) put into his hands (Conf. VII. ix., de Beat. Vit. i. 4) some translations of the nco-Platonist authors, pro- bably by Victorians. The elTect was rapid ) and profound. Much Christian truth he found there, but not inward peace : the 1 eternal Word, but not Christ the Word made I flesh. But his flagging idealism was braced, he was once for all lifted out of materialism, I and his tormenting doubts as to the origin of evil were laid to rest by the conviction that evil has its origin in the will, that evil is but the negation of good, and that good alone has a substantive existence (Conf. VII. vii. xiv.). His first impulse was to give up all earthly ties ("omnesillasancoras," Vit. Beat. ^), resign his professorship, and live for philosophy alone. But this he delayed to do, until, after his conversion, a serious lung-attack gave him what was now a welcome excuse (Conf. IX. ii., of. SoHl. I. i. I ; c. .Acad. I. i. 3 ; de Beat. Vit. i. 4). Meanwhile he read with care the Epistles of St. Paul, in which he found a provision for the disease of sin, which he had vainly sought in the Platonic books. But his life remained unregenerate, and his distress thickened. He then laid his case before Simplicianus, the spiritual adviser, and even- tually the successor, of Ambrose. Simplici- anus described to him the conversion of the aged Victorinus, to whose translation of the Platonists he had owed so much (Conf. VIII. ii.). .\ugustine hinged to follow the example of his pubUc profession of faith, but the flesh still held him back, like a man heavy with drowsiness who sinks back to sleep though he knows that the hour for rising has struck. So he went on with his usual life. § 6. Conversion (386-387). — One day a Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus, who held an appointment at court, called to visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure a volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to talk to his friends of the wonderful history of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had begun from hearing in church a passage of the gospel (Matt. xix. 21), on which he had promptly acted ; he then described the spread of the monastic movement, and informed his astonished hearers that even at Milan there was a monastery in existence. As Pontitianus AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 7:^ told his tale, Augustine was lillcd with self- reproach. Conscience shamed him that after ten years of study he was still carrying a burden which men wearied by no research had already cast aside. When Pontitianus had gone, he poured out his incoherent feelings to the astonished .Mypius, and then, followed by his friend, fled into the garden. " Let it be now — let it be now," he said to himself ; but the vanities of his life plucked at his clothes and whispered, " Do you think you can live without us ? " Then again the continence of the monks and virgins confronted him with the question, " Can you not do as these have done ? " Alypius watched him in silence. At last he broke down and, in a torrent of tears, left his friend alone. He threw himself down under a fig-tree, crying passionately, " Lord, how long ? — to-morrow and to-mor- row ! — why not now ? " Suddenly he heard a child's voice from the next house repeating, in a sing-song voice, " Take and read " (loUe, lege). He tried to think whether the words were used in any kind of children's game ; but no, it must be a divine command to open the Bible and read the first verse that he should happen upon. He thought of Anthony and the lesson in church. He ran back to AJypius and opened " the .Apostle " at Kom. xii. 13, 14, " Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof." " No further would I read, nc)r was it necessary." The peace of God was in his heart, and the shadows of doubt melted away. He marked the pas- sage and told Alypius, the friends exchanged confidences, and Alypius applied to himself the words, a little further on, " Him that is weak in the faith receive " (Rom. xv. i). They went in, and filled the heart of Monnica with joy at the news (Conf. VIII. viii.). It was now the beginning of the autumn vaca- tion. Augustine decided to resign his chair before the next term, and meanwhile wrote to Ambrose to announce his desire for baptism. His friend Verecimdus, who was himself on the eve of conversion, lent his country house at Cassiciacum, near Milan, to Augustine and his party ; there they spent the vacation and the months which were to elapse before bap- tism (winter 386-387). At Cassiciacum he spent a restful, happy time with his mother and brother, his son Adeodatus, Alypius, and his two pupils, Licentius and Trygetius, the former a son of his old patron Romanianus. He wrote several short books here, " in a style which, though already enlisted in Thy service, still breathed, in that time of waiting, the pride of the School" (Conf. I.\. iv.). These were the three books contra Acadcmicos, two de Ordine, the de Beata Vita, and two books of Soliloquies ; to this period also belong letters 1-4, of which 3 and 4 are the beginning of his correspondence with Nebridius (Conf. IX. iii.). Ambrose had, in answer to his re- quest for advice, recommended him to read Isaiah. But he found the first chapter so hard that he put it aside till he should be more able to enter into its meaning. The Psalms, however, kindled his heart at this time. To him, as to many in most diverse conditions, 74 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS they seemed to interpret the depths of his soul and the inmost experiences of his life (Conf. IX. iv.). But Augustine's main in- tellectual interest was still philosophical. Ex- cept when engaged upon the classics with his pupils, or on fine days in country pursuits (" in rebus rusticis ordinandis," c. Acad. I. v. 14 ; cf. II. iv. 10), the time was spent in discussing the philosophy of religion and Ufe. The above- mentioned books, of which those de Ordine are perhaps the most characteristic, are, excepting of course the Soliloquies, in the form of notes of these discussions. The time to give in his name for baptism was approaching, and the party returned to Milan. Augustine was baptized by Ambrose, along with his heart's friend Alypius, and his son Adeodatus. The church music, which Milan, first of all the Western churches, had recently adopted from the East, struck deep into his soul : " The tide of devotion swelled high within me, and the tears ran down, and there was gladness in those tears." § 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of Monnica. Return to Africa. Life as a Lay- man (387-391). — While waiting for baptism at Milan, Augustine had written a short book, de Immortaliiate Animae, and the first part, de Gramnititica, of a work on the " Uberal arts " : the latter, though included by Possidius in his list of Augustine's hterary remains, was early lost by him {Retr. I. vi.). After the baptism, Augustine, with Alypius, and Evodius, a fellow-townsman, converted before Augustine himself, who had joined him at Milan, set out for Africa, with the intention of continuing their common life. But at Ostia, Monnica was seized with fever, and died " in the fifty- sixth year of her age, and the thirty-third of mine." Augustine's account of her life and character, and of his conversations with her, shortly before her death, on Eternal Life, forms perhaps the most exquisite and touching part of the Confessions (IX. viii.-xiii.). He prayed for her soul, beheving that what he prayed for was already performed. " Let none have power to drag her away from Thy protection. . . . For she will not answer that she owes nothing, lest she should be confuted and seized by the crafty accuser ; but she will answer that her debt has been forgiven by Him, to Whom none can give back the ransom which He paid on our behalf, though He owed it not." Augustine now remained in Rome till the autumn of 388 (" jam post Maximi tyranni mortem," c. lit. Petit. III. 30, cf. Retr. I. vii.-ix.). Of his life there, the two books de Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de Moribus Manichaeorum, the de Qtiantitate Animae, and the first of his three books de Libera A rbitrio, are the monument. From them we gather that he lived with Evodius a life of " abun- dant leisure," entirely given to the studies begun at Cassiciacum. The book on the morals of the Manicheans, founded on his former converse with them at Rome (see above, § 5), was reserved for completion and pubhcation in Africa (xii. 26). At last Augus- tine crossed with Alypius to Carthage [de Civ. XXII. viii.), and returned to Thagaste. A work composed by him here, de Magistro (Conf. IX. vi. ; Retr. I. xii.), is in the form of a dialogue with Adeodatus, and Augustine AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS assures us that the substance of the words was really from the lips of his son at the age of sixteen, i.e. not later than 388. The boy died young, full of piety and promise ; we do not know the date, but he was present at Mon- nica's death (Conf. IX. xi.), and very pro- bably lived to accompany his father to Africa. At Thagaste Augustine and his friends lived on his paternal estate for nearly three years, a quiet, industrious, and prayerful life. Ne- bridius (Ep. 5) condoles with him for having to give so much time to the negotia civium ; but evidently there was plenty of leisure for study. We saw above (§ 6) that Augustine's studies were, up to the present, philosophical rather than Biblical. His ordination found him still but little versed in Scripture (Ep. 213). His continued correspondence with Nebridius (Epp. 5-14) shews the continued predominance of philosophical interest ; the same may be said of the writings of the period, de Genesi adv. Manichaeos, de Musica, de Magistro, de Vera Religione, and parts of the Liber de Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIIL The de Musica was a portion of the above-named unfinished work on the " liberal arts " : he wrote it at the request of an African bishop. It is inter- esting as giving one side of Augustine's view of secular culture, for which he claims, in the spirit of Plato, that if rightly used, it leads up to God, the underlying Truth of all things. The other works of this period are still per- vaded with the Manichean controversy. This is the origin of the de Vera Religione, one of Augustine's ablest works ; years later (about 414) he refers Evodius to it for the theistic argument (Ep. 162, 2). There is a difference of opinion as to the exact time at which Augustine sold his father's estate, and as to the monastic or lay character of the life at Thagaste. The Benedictine Life (III. ii.-v.), maintaining that Augustine's settlement at Thagaste was strictly monastic, accounts for the fact that he lived on his patrimony by supposing that he did so as a tenant of the purchaser. Of this there is no evidence whatever. The most probable inference from the crucial passage (Serm. 355, 2) combined with the statements of Possidius, is briefly as follows : — Augustine and his friends lived at his home in Thagaste, reaUzing approximately the ideal, formed already at Milan (Conf. VI. xiv.), and partially realized at Cassiciacum, of a common life of study and detachment from worldly cares. The tendency to a mon- astic ideal was there, and as time went on, Augustine determined to sell his property, and find a home more suitable for a monastery. Possibly the importunate demands of his fellow-citizens upon his kindness (see above) made Thagaste itself unsuitable. Hand in hand with the question of the place went the question of recruits. Augustine travelled to different places in search of a suitable site — a\-oiding towns where the see was vacant, for he knew that his growing fame might lead men to think of him. Among other places, he came to Hippo (Bona), where he knew of a young official whom he hoped io enlist for his monastery (" juvenis veni ad istam civitatem, quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium . . . veni ad istam civitatem propter videndum amicum quern putabam lucrari me posse Deo AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS ut nobiscuin esset in moiuisterin." Tlic tnonasterium is clearly prospective). This was probablv early in .191. Augustine had come to Hippo intending to stay no time, " with nothing but his clothes " ; but as it happened, he entered the church just as \'alerius, the aged bishop, was addressing the people on the necessity of choosing a new presbyter. Valerius, by birth a Greek (Possid. v. "homo natura Graecus "). wanted a fluent Latin preacher. Augustine's reputation had come before him. With one accord the people seized .\ugustiue. and presented him to \ale- rius for ordination. With sincere reluctance and many tears .\ugustine yieklcd ; Hippo became his home, and the Christian ministry his calling. Knowing of his plans. Valerius gave him a wonastt-riiim in the episcopal gardens. He had possibly already sohl his small estate at Thagaste ; if not, he did so now : the proceeds were spent on the poor of that place, and the people of Hippo approved and felt no jealousy (see Ef^. 126', 157*'). I He assembled in his monastery a number of i brethren like-minded, each with nothing of his own and all things common : above all, the common aim, "commune nobis ut esset magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus." (6) Augustine a Presbyter of Hippo (391- 395)- — .\ugustine at the time of his ordi- nation as presbyter (he does not appear to have passed, as .\mbrose had formally done, through the diaconate) was a Christian Platonist. His temper was absolutely Christian, his stock of ideas wholly Platonic He had used the Bible devotionally rather than worked at its theology. Fully conscious of this, he obtained from his bishop a short period of leisure in order to master the mini- mum of Scriptural knowledge necessary for the discharge of his office (Ep. 21). At Easter, 391, he was entrusted with the tradilio symholi. His addresses to the candi- dates for baptism on that occasion are still extant {Serm. 214-216). He was, in fact, soon full of work. His monastery, the first in Africa (see below, § 13), became a training- school for clergy. Possidius tells us of ten bishops who proceeded from it. Among the earliest were Alypius, who in 394 went to Thagaste, and Evodius, to Uzala. Possidius himself became bp. of Calamus, but appears to have spent much of his time at Hippo, which was only some forty miles away. Moreover, the example of the monastic life spread rapidly (Ep. 24, sub fin.) ; before Augustine died, there were at least three monasteries in Hippo alone {Vit. Ben. III. v. 4). Of his life as a presbyter we know few details. He corresponds with Aurclius, the new bp. of Carthage, with a view to putting down the disorderly feasts o\er the tombs of the mart>Ts {Epp. 22, 29 ; Conf. V. ii.). At the end of Aug. 392, he held a public dis- cussion for two days with Fortunatus, a .Manichean presbyter^ the notes of which re- main. Pf)ssidius tells us that as the result Fortunatus left Hippo and never returned. In 393 a general council of .African bishops met at Hippo, and .Augustine preached to them de Fide et Symbolo (one of his best-known shorter works) ; he also mentions {Retr. I. 23) a stay at Carthage which must have been AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 75 of some, length, as it w.is there tli.it lie lieUl his epoch-marking tliscussioiis of diflicnlties in the ICp. to the Romans, and at the re- quest of his friends committed the results to writing (see below, § 10). We know that a council was held at Carthage in 394 : pos- sibly that may have been the occasion of his presence. The Manichean controversy still claimed his energies. In addition to the public discussions already referred to, he WTotc at this time the famous tract tie Utilitate Credendi; another, de Duahus Animabus, a tract against the Manichean Adimantus ; and the imperfect work de Genesi ad Literam, a work which he abandoned, as he felt his novice- hand unequal to the task (Rctr. I. xviii. ; sec below, § 14). A new task, imposed upon him by his oificial responsibilities, was the controversy with the Donatists (sec below, § 8). Early in his presbyterate he wrote to a neighbouring bishop of that sect to remon- strate with him for rebaptizing {Ep. 23). He also composed, for popular use, an acrostic song in refutation of the sect (about 394 : Psalmus contra partem Donati), and a tract, now lost, contra Epistolam Donati. To this period, lastly, belong a group of cxegetical works which shew a rapid advance in the command of Holy Scripture, the fruit of systematic study : an exposition of the Ser- mon on the Mount, a commentary on Gala- tians, some of the Quaestiones LXXXIII. {supra, § ya), and the above-mentioned notes on Romans. He began a continuous commen- tary on the Epistle, but only succeeded in completing the Salutation. The de Mendacio (see Retr. I. xxvii.) was also written at this period, but its issue w^as deferred till about 420, when the contra Mend, was also published {Retr. II. Ix.). Generally speaking, the works of this transition period are remarkable for the supersession of the philosophical form of the older works by Biblical, and to a great extent Pauline, citcgories. The philosophical sub- stratum of Platonism remains, but Augustine is now a Biblical and ecclesiastical theologian. (For a detailed analysis of the ideas distinctive of this and the preceding periods respectively, see the masterly article of Loofs, mentioned at the end of this article, pp. 270-276.) Lastly, it was as a presbyter that he completed his three books de Libera Arbitrio {supra, § 7fl) : they were directed against the Manichean theory of the origin of evil {supra, § 4), and vindicate the moral responsibility of man against the theory of a physical principle of evil. To the position taken up in these books the Pelagians {infra, § 10) appealed, against Augustine's later doctrine of irresistible grace. Augustine has no difficulty in shewing that he had even at this early date refuted them by anticipation. But it was less easy to meet the appeal of the so-called semi- Pelagians (sec below, § 10 d), who were on the side of the church against Pelagius, but demurred to positions taken up by Augustine later in life. Of personal interest is Augustine's correspond- ence with the saintly Paulinus of Nola, to whom he sent the' books on Free Will. Paulinus had heard of the growing fame of Augustine, and sought his acquaintance by letters addressed to Alypius and to Augustine himself {Epp. 24-27, 30-32)- Augustine at this 76 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS period also began to correspond with Jerome (Fp. 28) ; in a letter of about this date he indignantly rejects the theory that the scene at Antioch between SS. Paul and Peter was to be explained patrocinium mendacii sus- cipiendo. B. Episcopate (from 395). — § 8. The Don- atist Controversy, (a) Origin. — Valerius was old and infirm, and had marked out Augustine as his successor. But he daily feared that some other church might elect him as bishop, and that he would therefore be lost to Hippo. So, with the eager consent of his flock, he took a step then almost without precedent, and, unconsciously breaking the letter of the eighth canon of Nicaea, induced Megahus of Calama, the " primae sedis Episcopus," i.e. bishop senior by consecration in Numidia, to consecrate Augustine as his coadjutor with right of succession. Valerius had (Possid. viii.) privately gained the consent of Aurelius, bp. of Carthage ; Megalius made some per- sonal objections, which he subsequently withdrew (references in Vit. Ben. IV. i. 2). Valerius did not long survive the fulfilment of his hopes and prayers ; for nearly thirty-five years Augustine was bp. of Hippo. His episcopate was occupied by grave controver- sies, and productive of monumental works ; but it was not eventful as regards Augustine's personal history. It will be best, therefore, to deal with it, not by annalistic narrative, but by considering in turn the great questions with which Augustine had to deal. We have spoken sufficiently of the Manichean contro- versy. As a bishop (about 397-400) Augustine wrote against these heretics the tracts c. Ep. Fundamenti and de A gone Christiana. The Confessions, written about this time, give an insight into Augustine's personal experiences of Manicheism (see above, §§ 2, 4). About 400 he refuted, in thirty-three short books, a treatise by his old Manichean friend Faustus ; at the end of 404 (Retr. II. viii., cf. Ep. 29) he held a public discussion with a Manichean named Felix, and as a result penned the short tract de Natvra Boni. Somewhat later he was brought into controversy with the Manichean " auditor " Secundianus. Of his reply he says, " omnibus, quae adversus illam pes tern scribere potui, facile praepono." These are writings drawn out by occasional contact with a con- troversy which Augustine had outgrown. It was otherwise with the Donatist struggle, which pressed continually upon him for the first twenty years of his episcopate. As we have seen, it claimed some of his energy already as a presbyter. But it may fairly be called the one great question of his earlier episcopate. According to Possidius, the Donatists were at the time of Augustine's ordination a majority among the Christians of the African provinces ; at Hippo they were a very large majority, and terrorized the Catholics by exclusive dealing (c. Duas Lit. Petil. II. 184). The schism had existed since about 311, when Caecihanus was elected bp. of Carthage. Personal dislike to the election found a pretext for denying its validity. FeUx of Aptunga, his consecrator, was alleged to have been a traditor — i.e. to have given up the sacred books during persecution. This, it was argued, vitiated his power to give valid AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS Orders. For to communicate with an offender is to take part in his offence ; and Felix's offence, ipso facto, cut him off from the church. Like Cyprian, the opponents of Caecilianus denied the validity of any sacra- ment conferred outside the church. These two principles, then, were involved : firstly, the old Cyprianic denial of the validity of sacra- ments conferred by heretical (or schismaticel) hands; secondly, the nullity of sacraments! performed by unworthy ministers: "oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum " (Ps. cxl. 5, Vulg.). The question at issue, then, was really that of the essential nature of the church as a holy society (see Renter, pp. 236 sqq. note 2). The Catholics, in reply, insist on the fact that the church throughout the world is on their side, and that the Donatists are, by their separation, offenders against the bond of charity which maintains the peace and unity of the church : " Una est columba mea, speciosa mea " (Cant. vi. g). (ft) Earlier History of Donatists. — It is not necessary here to detail the phases through which the controversy had passed in the nearly three generations which preceded the episco- pate of Augustine, nor to unravel the intricate charges and counter-charges which encumber the real principles at issue. The principal landmarks in the question were : (i^ The appeal to Constantine, apparently first made by the Donatists, which resulted in the adverse decisions of the councils of Rome (313) and Aries (314). (2) The consecration of Ma- jorinus as bp. of Carthage in opposition to Caecilianus (311). He died in 315, and was succeeded by Donatus, a man of great energy, to whom the schism probably owes its name. (3) Imperial persecution of the Donatists, first by Constantine in 316, and then, after an attempt to bribe the Donatists into submission (340), a ruthless suppression by Constans in 347. This was successful in producing tem- porary submission, but it intensified the feeling of protest ; moreover, the fanatical ferocity of the " Circumcellions," which Constantine's first persecuting edict had evoked, was smouldering in readiness to break out again. (4) Return of the Donatists under Julian. In 361, agreeably to his general policy of the restoration of ecclesiastical exiles, Julian re- pealed his predecessor's measures against the Donatists, and during his short reign they exercised a violent supremacy in Africa. (5) Optatus and Parmenian. Donatus had died in exile, and was now succeeded by Parmeni- anus, an able and comparatively moderate man. With him begins the first phase of the literary debate between Donatists and Catho- lics. The opponent of Parmenianus was Op- tatus of Milevis, who was still living after 384. His work on the Donatist schism is a rich mine of materials for its history. It is to be noted that Parmenianus and Optatus both believe in the visible unity of the church. But Parmenianus, insisting on the holiness of the church, identifies it with the separatist body in Africa, while Optatus insists upon the Catholicity of the church, and upon its Apostolicity as tested by communion with the chair of St. Peter and with the seven churches of the Apocalypse. (6) Disintegration of Donatism. This began to be apparent in the AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS ' ■rrtaiiiau srhisin of Ko^aUis, wliose fol- :- uiuhurrlutl the otlicr Uimatists, and i.itcit the Cireuincellious ; in the iiioder- l>.>ixatism of Tycouius (the author of a vork on exegesis, of which Augustine speaks lighly, dc Doctr. Chr. III. xxx.), who exposed [he inconsistencies of tlie Donatist position, jnd was consequently cxconununicated by Parinenianus ; and lastly, in the formidable Maximianist schism of 303, which resulted in he election of a second Donatist bishop, Maximianus, at Carthage, in opposition to ,\imianus. the successor of Parmeuianus. ijver 100 bishops sided with Maximianus ; a council of 310 Donatist bishops in 394 decided (igainst him. The civil authority was then invoked against the dissidents, who were per- iecuted with the usual severity. I Meanwhile the council of Hippo in 303 isupra, % 7 b) had, by judicious reforms and Souciliatorv provisions, paved the way back 1:0 the church for any Donatists who might be disillusioned by the inward breakdown of ithe sect. But its external position was still inposing. Edicts issued against the Dona- Ilists (since 373. (^od. Theod. XVI. vi.) by Valentiaian and (.'.ratian had had, owing to the Estate of the empire, but little effect. The edict of Theodosius against heretics (392, Cod. Theod. X\'I. V.) was not enforced against them ; in fact, from some time previous to Ithe death of Theodosius in 395 till 398 the imperial writ did not run in the African provinces. (c) A ugustine and Donatism. — When !Stilicho recovered Africa for Honorius from the usurper Gildo, Augustine had been a bishop seven years. He had preached, cor- responded, and written actively against the ; Donatists, who had heard his sermons and |read his tracts in great numbers. Their !leaders had realized that they were now op- jposed by a champion of unexampled power, .and endeavoured to keep their publications 'from falling into his hands. His earliest epis- I copal work, contra Partem Doitati, is lost. But ;in 400 he wrote a reply to an old letter of I Parraenianus, and the seven books de Bapt. ,c. Donat. In 401 and 402 he replied to a j letter of Petilianus, the Donatist bp. of Cirta, I and wrote his letter to the Catholics, de Unitate ^EccUsiae, an important contribution to the 1 controversy. In 403 the Catholic bishops in syaod at Carthage agreed to propose a decisive coaference ; the Donatists declined, and in 404 I the Catholic synod determined to ask for a ' revival of the imperial laws against the schism, i From 405-409 the remedy of force was once ' more tried, with very partial success. In the j latter year the Catholic synod petitioned Honorius to order a conference, and as the j Donatists were now understood to agree, I Marcellinus, a " tribune," was specially com- missioned to arrange for the meeting. At the ! conference Augustine naturally played the j principal part on the Catholic side. Marcel- I linus closed the proceedings by giving judg- ; ment in favour of the Catholics, and in 412 ; this was followed up by an imperial edict of \ drastic severity. During this period Augustine wrote, in I addition to twenty-one extant letters on the I controversy, and four lost works, the following, AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 77 which we btiU have: f. 'ur books contra Cresconium; one dc Viiim liapli-itno, the lire- viculiis (ollationis (a report of the conference mentioned above), and a bcR>k contra Donatis- tas post Collationem. After 412, physical force had to some extent diminished the need for argument. A few more letters — an address to the people at Caesarea (.-Mgiers), a public discussion with Emeritus, on Sept. 20, 418, two books contra Gaiidentium (a Donatist bishop, c. 420) — are the remains of a waning controversy. For a fuller account of the history, and of the contents of some of Augustine's anti-Donatist writings, see art. Do.natism, D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.). It remains to gather up briefly the import- ance of the controversy in .Augustine's life and thought. So far as Donatism fell before ar- gument, its fall was the work of Augustine. But what was the reflex eifect of the contro- versy upon Augustine himself ? Augustine was the tirst Christian writer who made the church, as such, the subject of systematic thought. But this was not wholly the result of the Donatist crisis. He fought Donatism in part with arguments which had been current for over two generations of the controversy, and which we find less lucidly formulated in Optatus, partly with conceptions which his own personal history and reflections had im- pressed upon his mind before he came into the conflict. The utmost that can justly be said — but that much is important — is that the Donatist conflict crystallized ideas which needed a shock of the kind to bring them into clear shape and form. It was beside the purpose to insist, as Cyprian had done, upon the episcopate, which the Donatists possessed, or upon the unity of the church, which they claimed for themselves. The question at issue went behind these points to the spiritual conditions necessary to the saving efficacy of means of grace. This exists, argued Augustine, only in the Catholic church. The baptism and orders of the Donatists were valid sacra- mentally, but useless spiritually. In a sense, the Holy Spirit operates in schismatical sacra- ments, so that a convert to the Catholic church will not be re-baptized or re-ordained. But it is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit operates, as the Spirit of peace and love. " Non autem habent Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non diligunt unitatem ; ac per hoc recte intelligitur dici non accipi nisi in Catholica Spiritus Sanctus" (de Bapt. III. xvi.). Augustine formulates with a clearness not found in any previous writer the distinction between what in later times was called the " gratia gratis data," which confers status only (the indelible " character " of a " baptizatus " or a priest), without any necessary change in the moral or spiritual character ; and " gratia gratum faciens," which makes a man not only a mem- ber of the visible church, but a real member of Christ, not merely a priest, but a g(jod priest. This distinction was hardly perceived by Cyprian (see Cypr. Epp. 65-67, esp. 66 : " credere quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinan- tur quid aUud est quam contendere quod non a Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecdesia con- stituantur ? "), who regarded a deposed bishop as a mere layman with but " the empty name and shadow " of priesthood. The recognition 78 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS of the validity of Donatist orders and sacra- ments was imposed upon Augustine by the settled judgment of the Catholic church, especially of the council of Aries, in 314 (Can. xiii., cf. viii., rejecting the Cyprianic view). But he clearlv found it difficult to grasp habitually the distinction between the " Spiritus Sanctus," the agent m every " valid " sacrament ( = " gratia gratis data "), and the " Spirilns cariiatis," which makes the sacrament a means of grace (" gratum faciens ") to the Catholic recipient. His fre- quent denials that " the Holy Spirit " could be possessed outside the visible unity of the church relate really to the latter, though there are passages which seem to extend to the former. But on the whole his mind is clear. He distinguishes sharply between Office and Person ; between the sacramental act and its benefit to the soul. The former can exist outside the CathoUc church, the latter onlv within it. In this respect Augus- tine is an uncompromising assertor of Cyprian's axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla saliis. But it must be observed that he subordinates the institutional to the spiritual conception of the church. The Donatists are wrong, because they have broken the bond of caritas which unites the CathoUc society. It is this, and not the mere fact, necessary though it be, of the episcopal succession, that unites CathoUcs with the Apostolic churches and through them by an " inconcussa series " with the Apostles themselves. (See below, § 16, 6, c ; also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, latter part of c. iii. ; Hatch, Organization, v. ; Renter, pp. 231-283, an able and thorough discussion.) §9. Augustine and the Heathen. Philosophy of Historv. — Augustine tells us {de Civ. Dei, XVIII. liii. 2) of an oracle current among the heathen, that the Christian religion would last 365 years, and then come to an end. He reckons that this time expired in the year 399. As a matter of fact, the year in question was marked by a widespread destruction of pagan temples throughout the Roman world (Vit. Bened. IV. xvi.). In this year apparently the counts Gaudentius and Jovius arrived in Africa to execute an imperial decree for the dismantling of the temples. At Carthage the splendid temple of Dea Coelestis, which had been closed, as it seems, since the law of 391 (Cod. Th. XVI. X. 10), and was already over- grown with weeds and bushes, was taken possession of by the Christians. But in 421 it was razed to the ground (Prosper, de Praed. III. xxxviii.). In some places images were hidden to preserve them from destruction. Heathen customs, as we gather from a sermon of Augustine {Serm. 62, 4), were still secretly observed even by some Christians. A council at Carthage in 401 petitioned the emperor to abolish public feasts and games which were, in spite of a previous imperial prohibition (Cod. Th. ib. 17), occasions of heathenish observances. The destruction of a statue of Hercules at Colonia Suffectana (? Sufetula) was the cause of a riot in which sixty Christians lost their lives (Ep. 50). In 407-408 a sweep- ing law, confiscating temples and ordering the destruction of altars, images, etc., was issued (Cod. Th. ib. 19, rf. Vit. Bened. VI. iv. 2, V. 3). Its promulgation was attended by most AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS serious riots at Calama, where the church wa; repeatedly wrecked by the heathen (Ep. 90 91, 103, 104). The murder of Stilicho (Sept 408), and the rumours that the laws agains' the heathen and the Donatists passed during his life lapsed with his death, caused a furthei widespread outburst of heathen violence ir Africa (cf. Cod. Th. App. Sirm. XIV.; Aug. Ep. q7). A stringent law, passed apparentl} at the instance of the provincial council at Carthage, of which Augustine was not a member, ordered rigorous penalties against all the offenders, and against conniving of- ficials. Alarmed by the state of the empire, the ministers of Honorius appear to have relaxed for a time the rigour of the laws against paganism and heresy alike, but at the urgent request of the African bishops they were again strictly enforced. On the whole, Augustine's tone and attitude towards the pagans is dignified and conciUatory {Epp. 133, etc.), but he shares in the general responsibiUty for persecution which must be allotted to the churchmen of this degenerate age. In 408 and 409 the Goths, under Alaric, had laid siege to Rome, and after long and fruitless negotiations, the city was taken and sacked on Aug. 24, 410. The sack of Rome, in its direct effects, was but an incident in the pro- found abasement of the empire in the miser- able reign of Honorius. But the downfall of the " Eternal Citv " struck awe into the minds- of men who failed to appreciate the material ^ and moral exhaustion which the disaster 1 merely symboUzed. Augustine's friend Mar- cellinus, the imperial officer who had been in charge of the conference with the Donatists,. introduced him to a distinguished (" illustris ") official, Volusianus, who was kept back from the Christian faith by difficulties relating to the Old Testament, the Incarnation, and the in- compatibility of some principles of the Gospel with civil life and the public good (Epp. 135- 138, cf. 132). The last-named question natur- ally connected itself with the prevalent heathen explanation of the fall of Rome, as due to the desertion of the old gods and the progress of Christianity. Augustine, unable at the time to discuss this question except in passing (Ep. 138I. 9-i6. cf. i3,&), presently began a more thorough consideration of it. This is his famous treatise de Civitate Dei, begun about the end of 412, and not com- pleted until 426. The first two books are addressed to Marcellinus, who was put to death, Sept. 13, 413 ; with a third book, they were published before 415. In this year, about Lent, he wrote two more (Ep. 169') In 416-417, when he was advising Orosius to write his Historia adversus Paganos, Augustine had published ten books, and was at work on the eleventh. By 420 he had published four- teen ; the eighteenth was finished " nearly thirty years " after the consulate of Theodorus (399), i.e. hardly earlier than 426. The work then was continued amid interruptions, and the plan widened out from a refutation of the heathen calumny (Retr. II. xliii.) to a compre- hensive explanation of the course of human affairs — a religious philosophy of history. The problem was one of terrible actuality. The ancient world and its civilization were in real truth breaking up, and the end of Rome' AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS TO seemed like a giving way of tlio solid earth ^ is dependent for it on the f/V/Vu.'i /ct;ivif PelaKius in ic West. (On Augustine's view of Zosimus, I Kcuter, pp. 312-322, and below, § 12 d. Ill the whole question, see Clarnier in Marti !cic. I. p. IQ.) Zosimus appears to .i.e imperfectly grasped the points at issue, ad in this case', as in that of Apiarius in the ime year iinfra, § 12, c), and in that of the letropolitan rights of Aries, he appears to ave been in a greater hurry to assert the laims of his see than to ascertain the merits f the question in debate. The most able advocate of Pelagianism now ppears in the person of Julian, bp. of Ecla- um in Southern Italy. He refused to sign he trattoria, accused Zosinius of changing his ■ont under imperial pressure '"jussionis terr tc erculsos," c. Duas Efyp. Pclag. ii. 3), and ap- ealed to a general council. This ajipeal came o nothing (ib. iv. 34). Julian was deposed •y Zosimus, banished by the (Government, and tick refuge in the East. He is said to have ound a friend in Theodore of Mopsuestia. it any rate, in 431 the Westerns secured the ondemnation of Pelagianism (without speci- (Cation of its tenets) along with Nestorianism t the council of Ephesus, on the ground of he kindred nature of the two heresies. This .'as not without substantial reason. The two leresies rest upon the same fundamental idea •f the benefit which the redemptive work of !hrist brings to man — viz. moral improvement , )y perfect teaching and example, rather than ! .tonement for an inherently guilty race (" ut 'el sero redamaremus eum," Julian in Op. mpert. I. xciv.). Augustine continued to write .gainst Pelagianism. In 418 he wrote two )ooks, de Gratia Chrisli et de Peccalo Originali ; ' n the two following years the two books de [ S'uptiis et Concupiscentia, and four de Anima iusque Origine. These works bore on the ransmixsion of original sin, and the difficult toUateral question of the origin of the soul, I vhether by direct creation or ex traduce. Tertullian had roundly maintained tradux j mimae, tradux peccati. Pelagius denied both. \ugustine cannot decide the question ; he lalf leans to creation, but his theory appears :o require the other alternative (see below, i 15). JuUan attacked the de Nuptiis hotly. Augustine's four books, contra Duas Epp. Pela- 'janorum (420) are in reply to Julian on this i Is well as on the historical questions ; they A-ere followed by six books contra Julianum j about 421). Julian replied with vigour, and j ■Xugustine at the time of his death had only inished six books of a rejoinder which he in- ;ended to be complete (Opus Imperfectum). I (c) The semi- Pelagians (from about 42 0). — In the combat with Pelagianism, Augustine iannot be said to have changed his views supra, § 10, sub init.) ; but he stated, with i ncreasing clearness and sharper consistency, jpinions which he had gathered from his study / the Divine Unity. Augustine paves the way, by his insistence on the doctrine of the One Personal God, for the scholastic doctrine "f the Una Res, the specifically Western pro- duct of Trinitarian thetilogy. The same holds i;i>od of Christology. At Chalcedon, Leo's t>>nie, which shews the profound influence of Augustine, carried the day in the teeth of the dominant tone of Greek Christology ; and it is interesting to find Theodoret, who of all Greek churchmen had most reason to welcome the result, quoting Ambrose and Augustine as authorities in his dogmatic Dialogues — an ex- ( eption to the general indifference of the East to Latin theologians. Another exception, due in part to independent controversial reasons, is the protest of Leontius and the " Scythic monks," under Justinian, against the " semi-Pelagianism " of Faustus of Reii ; Leontius shews some knowledge, direct or second-hand, of Augustine (Loofs's Leontius, pp. 231 ff.). Augustine's influence, then, on Greek Christianity has been very slight. But although he has powerfully contributed to the divergence in thought and feeling of Latin Christianity from Greek, he is personally unconscious of any such tendency. Of his ' >wn knowledge of Greek he speaks slightingly ; I'.ibbon (c. xxiii.^s) and others take him -trictly at his word, but Renter (pp. 179, etc.) iiews that we must rate it somewhat more highly than Augustine himself does. § 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the Church. The Roman See. — Augustine's view of the relation of the church to the civil power (see above, § 9) prepared the way for the medieval system. But in Augustine's hands the theory lacked elements indispensable for its practical application. Not only did his conception of the church hover between the transcendental spiritual ideal and the empir- ical, tangible organization, but his conception of the organization of the visible church itself lacked that practical precision without which the church could assert no effective claim to control the secular arm. To the authority of the church he surrendered himself with pas- sionate affection. " I should not believe in the Gospel," he wrote in the early days of his episcopate, " did not the authority of the Catholic church compel me " (c. Ep. Fund. 6, in A.D. 397). But this was the immanent authority which the church by her life, creed, and worship exercised upon his soul, rather than her official decisions. These, again, he AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 83 Where was its centre ? What was the final stan- dard of appeal ? To these questions it is hard to obtain from Augustine a definite answer. .\ugustine was not an ecclesiastical statesman. His interest was above all in personal religion, and therefore, in a secondary degree, in doctrine and discipline. Although he takes for granted the Cyprianic view of the episcopal office, he does not insist upon it with special emphasis ; he emphasises, on the other hand, in a marked manner, the universal priesthood of Christians. His insistence on the indelible character of the priestly ordination is not in the interest of " sacerdotalism," but as against the spiritual \'alue of valid but schismatical orders {supra, § 8, c). He accepts the authority of Nicaea (the only strictly general council known to him), but as to the authority of other councils his language is ambiguous. He disallows Julian's appeal to a general council on the ground that " the cause is finished " by " a competent judgment of bishops" (c. Jul. III. 3). But in another passage (supra, § 10, a, fin.) he is understood to say, " the cause is finished " by two African councils, plus " re- scripts from' the apostolic see." What is his real view of the supreme organ of church authority ? {a) The Apostles in their lifetime were the leaders, " principes" (Ps. lxvii.2« Vulg. ; see Enarr. in loc), and " patres '' (Ps. xliv.i^ and Enarr.) ; now that they are gone, we have their f'llii in their place, the bishops, who are principes super omnem terram. The Apostles still live on in the bishops, who are accordingly the vehicle of the supreme author- ity of the church. The Donatist bishops cannot claim this status {Ep. 53^ etc.), because they are out of communion with the apostolic churches. Hence {b) the unity and continuity of the episcopate are essential to its Apostolic rank. In this unity even mali praepositi are authoritative, " non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis " {Ep. 1051*'). This is the old Cyprianic doctrine, which Augustine, like Cyprian, finds in the symbolic foundation of the Church upon Peter, who represents the whole body. All bishops are equal ; there is no Episcoptts episcoporum {de Bapt. III. 5, VI. 9, quoting Cyprian). But as Peter repre- sented his coequal colleagues, the Apostles, so his successors in the Roman see represent their co-equal colleagues the bishops (cf. ad Classic, in Ep. 250, ad fin. . . . " .n concilio nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit ^ad Sedem Apost. scribere, ut . . . quid sequi debeamus cowwMWj owmmw auctoritate . . . firmetur"). All bishops alike hold the cathedra unitatis, all alike trace their succession to one or other of the Apostles. This is more easily traceable in some cases {i.e. the churches quibus Apos- toli scripserunt) than in others, but most obvious in the Roman see, whose bishops, from the sedes (i.e. episcopate, c. Ep. Fund. 5 ; cf. " primae sedis episcopus," supra, § 8, init.) of Peter himself, have followed onu another in a succession known to all {Psalm c. Donat. sub fin., Ep. 53^). The successio sacerdotum at Rome and the successiones episcoporum generally {de Util. Cred. xvii. accepted with all his heart. But what was the I 35) are, to Augustine, co-ordinate and convert' ultimate organ of the church's authority ? | ible ideas. Even with regard to the authority 84 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS of councils, there is no real finality. Earlier councils are subject to correction by later {de Bapt. II. iii. 4). This is the position of Julius I. (see below, § i6, and the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii- fin.). (c) The Episcopate and the Roman See. — The Roman see was ApostoUca sedes, not ex- clusively {c. Faust, xi. X.; de Doct. Christ. II. viii. 12), but conspicuously. This implied a pre-eminence of rank, at any rate over sees not " Apostolic" {Ep. 431, "Rom. ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae vigiiit principa- tus" ; c. Jul. I. iv. 13, prior loco; c. Duas Epp. Pel. I. i. 2 [to pope Bonifatius], " quamvis ipse in ea [sc. communi specula pastorali] praeemineas celsiore fastigio," and ib. i, " qui non alta sapis quamvis altiiis praesideas "). But in none of the passages where this is fully recognized is any definite authority assigned to the " apostolic see." Peter was first of the Apostles, superior to any bishop (even to Cyprian, de Bapt. III. i.-2) ; but he is simply tlie representative of the Apostles, nor does Augustine ascribe to him authority over the others (see Serm. 463c), and the same applies to his estimate of Peter's successors. Augustine's own instinct towards Rome is one of unbounded respect. Towards the end of his life (about 423) he had to remove, for obvious unfitness, Autonius, the bishop of the newly-created see of Fussala, a daughter- church of Hippo {Ep. 209). Antonius, like Apiarius (of whom presently), and possibly encouraged, Uke others {ib.^), by his example, decided to try his fortune at Rome. He obtained from the senior bp. of Numidia a favourable verdict and an introduction to Bonifatius, who was, prima facie, incUned to take up his cause, and wrote to that effect. But Bonifatius died (422), and his successor Coelestinus had to deal with the case. Rumours reached Fussala that he would insist on the restoration of Antonius, and that the Government would support him by miUtary force. Augustine, in fear lest the people of Fussala should go back en masse to the Donatists, writes to Coelestinus to entreat his support. He entreats him by the memory of St. Peter, " who warned the praepositi of Christian peoples not to domineer over their brethren " {ib. 9). The case is an interesting one, but it loses some of its importance in view of the fact that the African church was then still bound by voluntary promise, pending in- quiry into the genuineness of an alleged Nicene canon to that effect, to allow appeals to Rome by bishops. The promise arose out of the famous case of Apiarius. This presbyter was deposed by Augustine's friend and pupil Urbanus, bp. of Sicca, and appealed to Zosi- mus, bp. of Rome. Zosimus had hastily taken his side and ordered his restoration. Urbanus refused, both on the merits of the case, which he knew and Zosimus did not, and also on the ground that Zosimus had no right to interfere. This was the real question at issue. Zosimus first wrote (418), basing his right to interfere on the canons of Nicaea. As the African bishops found no such provision in their copy of the canons, they postponed the matter for further verification of the true text, promising meanwhile {paulisper) to act (without pre- judice) on the assumption that the alleged AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS canon was genuine. In reply, Zosimus sent three legates — Faustinus, bp. of Potentia in Picenum, and the presbyters Philip and Asellus — to Carthage, with written and oral instructions. The written instructions {com- monitorium) comprised four points (Bruns Canones, I. 197) : (i) the right of the Roman See to receive appeals from bishops (see Can. Sard. Lat. 3, 4) ; (2) bishops not to go over the sea to court {i.e. from Africa) " importune " {ib. 8) ; (3) presbyters and deacons excom- municated by their bishop to have an appeal to fiyiitimi episcopi {ib. 17) ; (4) Urbanus to be excommunicated, " or even cited to Rome." I Of these points, (2) betrays the soreness of ! Zosimus at the wav in which AureUus had ! forced his hand {supra, § 10, b) ; (4) hangs I upon (i) ; (3) is necessary in order to bring ; the case of Apiarius, who ivas not a bishop, I somehow under the scope of the pretended 1 Nicene canon relating to (i) ; the case of Apiarius would become a factor in that of Urbanus, which Zosimus would, by stretching the right of receiving appeals to a right of evocatio. claim to deal with under (i). A re- ference to the Sardican canons will shew how flimsv a foundation they offer for the claims founded upon them. But what is important to observe is that Zosimus, like Innocentius {supra, § 10, a), bases his right to interfere simply upon canonical authority. On neither side is there any notion of jiurisdiction inherent in the Roman see prior to ecclesiastical legis- lation. If the alleged canon was genuinely Nicene, it estabUshed the jurisdiction ; if not, the jurisdiction fell to the ground. When Faustinus and his colleagues reached Africa, Zosimus had been succeeded by Boni- fatius. They were received by the plenary council of the African provinces at Carthage (419). Alypius and Augustine were there, and joined in the proceedings (Bruns, pp. j 153 ff.). The council cut short the verbal instructions of Faustinus {ib. p. 197), and in- sisted upon hearing the commonitorium. When it was read, and the canon on episcopal ap- peals was quoted, Alypius undertook the in- vidious duty of pointing out that the Latin and the Greek copies of the Nicene canons accessible at Carthage contained no such I canon. He suggested that both sides should obtain authentic copies from the bps- of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Meanwhile, the copies above referred to should be placed on the minutes ; but the alleged canon should be observed donee integra exem- plaria veniant. Augustine proposed a like action with regard to (3) ; the proposals were unanimously carried, and accepted, though with no good grace, by Faustinus. The council wrote to Bonifatius intimating their action (Bruns, pp. 196 f.), stating how they had dealt with Apiarius, and complaining with dignity and firmness of the insolence of j Faustinus, which, they add, they beheve and hope they will not, under the new Roman bishop, be called upon to suffer. The signa- tures include those of Augustine and Alypius. Six years later (425) an African council (Bruns, p. 200) receive Faustinus once again. Coelestinus, now bp. of Rome, writes that " he has been rejoiced by the coming of Api- arius," and with Faustinus, Apiarius once more AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS reappears at Carthage. But not only did the i culprit finally and ignominiously break down before the council : the replies from the j Eastern churches had come in, with authentic copies of the Nicene canons ; and the canons ; put forward by Zosinius and his successors j were not there! [It must be noted that, al- though C.ratus of Carthage was possibly pre- sent at Sardica in 343 (see Xicene Lib. vol. 4, Athanasius, p. 147), the .African church knew nothing of the canons passed there. They onlv knew Sardica by repute as an " .\rian " synod, and friendly to the Uonatists {Ep. 44'i ; c. Crescon. IV. xliv. 52). The canons of Sardica had not passed into the generally accepted rules of the church.] The council press the ignominious exposure, which makes .» dean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, with a firm but respectful hand. They are ontent to ask Coelestinus to observe the canons, not to receive appellants, not to send legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not to iiitlict Faustinus upon them any more. The Roman chancery did not learn from this pain- ful experience not to tamper with the canons -ce the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K. i8g6), but the in- ■ ident is decisive as to the mind of the African church. Though Renter, in his scrupulous desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by Augustine in the case (pp. 306 seq.), there is nothing to shew that in this matter he was in other than perfect accord with Aurelius and the .\frican bishops. On the contrary, he says, late in his life, of clergy who merely evade his own rigorous dioces;ui rule : " in- tcrpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non possit." This tone implies that the Apiarius case is now matter of history {Senn. 156'). But Renter is probably right in his view that Augustine's interest in constitutional ques- tions was small compared to his concern for doctrine. (d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal Authority. — Augustine shews no jealousy of the power and prestige of the Roman see. On the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. What degree of dogmatic authority did this imply ? The principal data for answering this question are connected with the Pelagian controversy (supra, § 10, a, b). Innocentius certainly reads into the letters of the Africans (Aug. Epp. 175-177, see 181-183) a hyper- Sardican attitude towards his chair of which they were innocent. But it is clear that the .\fricans attach the greatest importance to his approbation of their decision, only they do not treat the doctrinal issue as at ail doubtful i>r subject to papal decision ; on the contrary, in the private letter {Ep. 1773.6-9) which .\ugustine sends to ensure that Innocentius shall not lack full information on the merits of the case, he takes for granted that the eccle- siaslica et apostolica Veritas is already certain. He assumes (with |>robable historical correct- ness) that tlie .\frican church owes its original tradition to Rome {ib.i'>) ; but both have their source ("ex eodem capito") in the .\postolic tradition itself (see Renter, pp. 307-311). Augustine refers to Innocentius's reply in a AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 85 letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). Ho treats it not as a doctrinal decision, but as a splendid confirmation of a doctrine already certain (see Renter, p. 311). As a result, the Pelagians have definitely lost their case : " causa finita est." Augustine uses this phrase twice : once (§ 10, a, fin.) with reference to the African councils and the reply of Innocentius ; once (see beginning of this section) in 421 of the condemnation of Pelagianism by the judicium episcoporum. With the latter pas- sage we must compare Ep. i()&^i (written in 418), where the " adjutorium Salvatoris qui suam tuetur ecclesiam " is connected with the " conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia," not with the action of popes Innocentius and Zosimus. At a much later date (426), review- ing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of the whole cause as having been dealt with j conciliis episcopalibus ; the letters of the I Roman bishops are not dignified with separate \ mention (Ep. 214"'). On the whole, these utter- ances are homogeneous. The prominence, if any, assigned to the rcscripta over the concilia in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, § 10, a, fin.) is relative to a passing phase of the question. Its sense is, moreover, wholly altered in the utterance in- vented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic apologists : Roma locuta est, et causa finita est. It occurred to no one in those days to put any bishop, even of an apostolic see, above a council, although there are signs at Rome of a tendency to work the Sardican canons in that direction. Augustine experienced, as we have seen, a signal, and to him especially galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus with reference to the Pelagians. The brunt of the correspondence witii Zosimus at this painful crisis apparently fell upon Aurehus and the bishops of his province (.\fri. c. Duas Epp. Pel. II. iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, Augustine's own province. Augustine, as compared with the African bishops, distinctly minimizes the indictment. Zosimus had pro- nounced the libellus of Coelestius catholic. Augustine explains this favourably, as refer- ring not to his doctrine, but to his profession of submission to correction ; " voluntas emen- dationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est." The action of Zosimus was well meant, even if too lenient (lenius actum est. See also de Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the Afri, which was stern and menacing in tone (" Constituimus . . . per venerabilem . . . Innocentium . . . prolatam manere sententiam," Prosp. adv. Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes of compromise. Zosimus, however (c. Duas Epp., U.S.), " never by a word, in the wliole course of the proceedings," denied original sin. His faith was consistent throughout. Coelestius deceived him for a time, but illam sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit (de Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). " The Roman church, where he was so well known, he could not deceive permanently " (ib. viii. 9). But there had been danger. " Supposing — which (lod forbid ! — the Roman church had gone back upon the sentence of Innocentius and ap- proved the dogmata condenmed by iiim, then it would be necessary ratiicr [/w/nTdom itself, for Christ's sake (see Serm. 50S, 14; Ep. 157,29,34,36, etc.; de Virg. 14). Yet riches — and this is the reflection towards which he gravitates^are, as a matter of ex- perience, a great hindrance ; the rich are as a rule the chief offenders " difficile est ut non plura peccata contrahant " (in Psalm, cxxxii. 4), therefore " abstineamus nos, fratres, a pos- sessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino " (ib. cxxxi. "^j ; the counsel of poverty is the safe course. Augustine bases this on the temptation to misuse of wealth ; this would tend to place the man who uses his wealth well and wisely, overcoming temptation, in God's service, higher than him who evades the trial. But the drift of church feeling was too strong for this thought to prevail. Augustine and Pelagius were agreed that monks as a class must rank above " secular " Christians ; widely removed as Augustine was from the Pelagian idea of merit, yet practically he often subordinates the importance of the inward to the outward, of character to works. But monks must live, and, as we have seen, August- ine would have them work. To " take no thought for the morrow" means to seek first the Kingdom of God ; not improvidence or laziness, but singleness of aim is the note of the Christian life (in Serm. in Mont. II. 56). Augustine had occasion (Ep. 211) to address a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for the abatement of evils incidental to the com- mon life, and for the regulation of their prayers, food, costume, and other details. This letter, a model of good sense and right- mindedness, is the basis of the " Regula " for monks printed among his works. This Rule is therefore an adaptation of Augustine's actual counsels, but can hardly be from his own hand. It has been much valued by monastic reformers, and was the basis of the rules of St. Norbet, of St. Dominic (i2i6),and of the different communities of "canons regular" and friars which have borne the title of "Augustinian" (from 1244). It will be noticed that Augustine's theory of property is vitiated by the assumption that Acts iv. 32 implies a permanent condemnation of private property. This was even more conspicuously the case with St. Ambrose, who speaks very strongly of the duty of Christians to treat their possessions as the property of the poor. Augustine, in a passage not wholly consistent with some referred to above, speaks similarly of the private propertv of Christians as the common property of all ; to treat it otherwise is damnabilis usurpatio (Ep. 10535). This " Christian communism," it may be re- marked in passing, differs from that of Proud- hon (" la propriete c'est le vol ") as the duty to give differs from the right to take. In one point Augustine takes the opposite view to Ambrose, namely, in the theory of church property. Ambrose, in his resistance to the action of the empress J ustina, who attempted AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS to transfer the church at Milan to the Arian bishop, anticipated the medieval theory of the absolute right of the church to ecclesiastical property, a right with which the emperor, who is intra ecclesiam, may not presume to tamper. This agrees perfectly with principles laid down by Augustine in the de Civitate Dei [supra. § <) : imperium in ecclesia, etc.). But .\ugustine, defending the acti!u .'ption of the universality of the One Ktli-i.ns since the first by Amerbach (Basel, 1506) may be found in the' article by Loofs {infra). The standard ed. is that by the Benedictines of St. Maur (see Kukula and Rottmanner in Hist. AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 01 Phil. Transactions of the Vienna Academy, 1 890- 1 892, .and Tassin, Hist. lit. de la Congreg. de S. Maur., Brux. 1770), completed in 1690. The edition was by several hands, and was attacked fiercely by the opponents of Jansen- ism. This was perhaps inevitable in the at- tempt to make Augustine speak for himself. The principal points of attack were the Preface, by Mabillon, to the Tenth Volume, which its author revised under pressure, and the Index. The latter is a marvel of completeness, and many of its articles are in substance theologi- cal treatises. The Vita, mainly by Vaillant, is largelv indebted to the contemporary work of Tillemont, the thirteenth vol. of whose Memoires, a Life of St. Augustine, in 1075 pp., appeared after his death (1698). The Bened. ed. was reprinted at Venice, 1729-1735. The eleven vols, in folio were replaced in the next reprints (Venice, 1756-1769, Bassano, 1 797- 1 807) by eighteen in quarto. The Paris reprint of Gaume (1836-1839) and that of Migne (in the Patr. Lat., vols. 32-46) return to the arrangement of eleven vols. ; but in Migne some of the vols, are subdivided, and a twelfth of supplementary matter {Patr. Lat. 47) is added. This edition is better printed than many of the series, and is the most convenient for reference. Its text should be superseded by that of the Vienna Corpus ; but at present only a portion of Augustine's works have appeareci in this series {Confessions, de Civ. Dei, Letters, 1-133, Speculum, several exegeti- cal works, anti-Manichean treatises, various anti-Pelagian works, and a vol. containing de Fid. et Symb., the Retractationes, and other works (1900); also the excerpts of Eugippius, an edition important for the light thrown by it on the text of Augustine). (2) Editions of Separate Works. — We have a good edition of the de Civitate Dei, by Dom- bart (Triibner, 1863), and a more recent one of bks. xi. and xii., with intro., literal trans., and notes by Rev. H. Gee (Bell, 5s.), who has also ed. Ln joannis Evang. Tract, xxiv.-xxvii. and Ixvii.-lxxix. (is. bd. each. Bell), with trans, by Canon H. Brt)wn ; a number of smaller tracts, and the de Trinitate in the SS. Patr. Opusc. Selecta, by H. Hurter, S.J. (Inns- bruck, Wagner) ; Anti-Pelagian Treatises, with valuable Introduction by Dr. Bright (Clarendon Press, 1880) ; de Cateehiz. Rud., by Kriiger (in his Quellenschri/ten, 4, Frieburg, 1891) ; Confessions, by Pusey (Oxf. 1838), and Gaume (Paris, 1836, i2mo). The new ed. of Tract, in Joh. Ixvii.-lxxix., by H. F. Stewart (Camb. 1900), has a translation and some admirably digested introductory matter. (3) Translations. — The translations in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in Clark's scries (Edin. 1866- 1872), are incorporated and supplied with useful introductory matter in the Post-Nicene Library (ser. i). ed. by Dr. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, 1886-8). Three Anti-Pelagian Treatises, by Woods and John- ston (D. Nutt, 1887). The Confessions, bks. i.-ix., are translated by Dr. Charles Bigg (Methuen, 1897, with a most interesting Intro- duction). The extracts in this article follow this translation. Another ed. by Temple Scott, with intro. by Mrs. Meynell, is pub. by Mowbrav (7s. 6d. net.), and follows Dr. Pusey's trans. Dr. Hutchings trans, and ed. the Con- 92 AUGUSTINUS fessions (Longmans, 2S. 6^.)- Preaching and Teaching ace. to S. Aug. is a new trans, of the de Doct. Christ, bk. iv., and de Rudibus Catech. with 3 intro. essavs by Rev. W. J. V. Baker and C. Bickersteth and a preface by Bp. Gore (Mowbray, 2S. 6d.). (4) Biographies.^n addition to that of Possidius. and those of the Benedictines and Tillemont mentioned above, see Remy Ceillier, Auteitrs Sacres, vols. 11 and 12 ; Acta Sanc- torum ■ .•\ug. vol. 6 ; Poujoulat, Hist, de Saint Aug. (Paris, 1843) ; Bohringer, Aur. Aug. (2 ed., Stuttg. 1878) ; Naville, St. Aug. : Etude sur le developpement de sa pensee, etc. (Geneva, 1872) ; Bindemann, der h. Aug. (3 vols., Berlin, 1844-1S69) ; Harnack, Augus- tin's Confessionem (Giessen, 1888). The greater Church Histories, and works on Chris- tian literature, deal fully with Augustine. A brochure, S. Augustine and African Church Divisions by the Rev. W. J- Sparrow Simpson, was pub. by Longmans in igro. Of articles in Dictionaries, etc., we may mention those of de Pressense, in D. C. B. ('4-vol. ed.'>, which gives a very useful list of the contents of the several vols, of his works in the great Bene- dictine edition, and Loots, in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyclopddie (Leipz. 1897), an article worthy of the writer's high reputation, and much used in the present article. (5) Doctrinal and General. — For older litera- ture, see the references to fuller bibliographies at the end. The Augustinische Studien of Hermann Renter (Gotha, 1887), so frequently quoted above, are beyond comparison for thoroughness and impartiality, and indispens- able. The histories of doctrine should be consulted. Harnack's treatment of Augustine (in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3) is among the most s>Tnpathetic and powerful portions of that work ; the writer's instinctive apprecia- tion of a great religious personality is nowhere more apparent than here. Loofs's Leitfaden is also most useful. Mozley, The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (3rd. ed. 1S83) ; Nourrisson, La Philosophie de St. Augustin (Paris, 1886, 2 vols.) ; Bright, Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers (ed. 2, Oxf. 1891) ; Cunningham, St. Austin (Hulsean Lectures, 1886) ; Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Bampton Lectiures, 1886 ; comparison of Aug. with Origen, etc.) ; Robertson, Regnum Dei (Bampton Lectures, No. 5); Dorner, Augustinus (Berlin, 1873); Gibb and Montgomery's ed. of the Confessions in the Camh. Patristic Texts, 1908, a v^aluable critical ed. with Introduction. The above list is a mere selection. For more complete bibliography see Loots («.s.) ; Barden- hewer's Patrology. Dr. Shahan's trans. 1908, pub. by Herder, Freiburg i/B. and St. Louis, Mo. ; Potthast, BibliothecaHist. Medii Aevi{ed. 2, 1896), vol. ii. p. 1187 ; Chevallier, Repertoire des sources historiques ; de Pressense (m.s.) ; Nicene and post-Nicene Libr., ser. i, vol. i. A short popular Life of St. Augustine is pub. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, by S.P.C.K., who also pub. an Eng. trans, of the Treatise on the City of God, by F. R. M. Hitchcock. Cheap trans, of the Confessions and the City of God (2 vols.) are in^. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith). [A.R., 1901.] Augustinus, St., archbp. of Canterbury. AUGUSTINUS i The materials for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury are almost entirely comprised I in the first and second books of Bede's Eccle- , siastical History, with some additional points in Gocelin's Life of St. Augustine, Thorn's j Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey ; a few letters of Gregory the Great ; the Lives of 1 Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon and John the Deacon. His mission to England was due to the circumstance of Gregory the Great, a monk in the monastery of St. Andrew, on the Caelian Mount at Rome, one day passing through the market-place of the city, and noticing three boys exposed for sale who told him they were ; Angles from Deira, a province of King Ella. ' By a playful interpretation of the word he was [ reminded of angels, delivered from u-rath, with songs of hallelujah. Years passed away and i the idea ripened into a mission to Britain I headed by .\ugustine the abbot of St. Andrew's. i In the' summer of a.d. 596 they set out, traversed the north of Italv, and reached the neighboiurhood of Aix, in Provence, and the north of France. They crossed the English Channel and landed at Ebbe's Fleet, in the Isle of Thanet and kingdom of Kent. King Ethelbert received the missionaries in a friendly spirit, either in the open space near Ebbe's Fleet, or, according to another ac- count, under an ancient oak in the middle of the island. To make a deeper impression on the monarch's mind, Augustine came up from the shore in solemn procession, preceded by a verger caixying a large silver cross, and I followed by one bearing aloft on a board, painted and gilded, a representation of the Saviour. Then came the rest of the brethren and the choir, headed by Honorius and the deacon Peter, chanting a solemn litany for the eternal welfare of themselves and the people amongst whom they had come. Ethelbert listened attentively to Augustine's address, delivered through interpreters, and then, in a manner at once politic and courteous, replied that the promises of the strangers were fair, but the tidings they announced were new and full of a meaning he did not understand. He could not give his assent to them and leave the customs of his people, but he pro- mised the strangers kindness and hospitality, together with liberty to celebrate their ser- vices, and undertook that none of his subjects who might be so disposed should be prohibited from espousing their religion. Augustine and his companions again formed a procession, and crossing the ferry to Richborough, advanced to Canterbury, chanting one of the solemn litanies learnt from Gregory, and took up their abode in the Stable-gate, near the present church of St. Alphege. till the king should finally make up his mind. Thus admitted into the city, the mission- aries commended their message by their self- devotion and pure and chaste living. Before long they were allowed to worship in the church of St. Martin, which Ethelbert's Christian queen Bertha, a Gallic princess with bp. Liudhard for her chaplain, had been accustomed to attend, and they were thus encouraged to carry on their labours with renewed zeal. At last Ethelbert avowed him- self ready to accept Christianity, and was bap- AUGUSTINUS tized on Whitsunday, June 2, 597, probably at St. Martin's church. The convcrsir)n of Ihi-ir rhiof was, as is ilUistratcd again and agaiu in tlio history i>f medieval missions, tlie signal for the baptism of the tribe. At tlie next assembly, therefore, of the Witan, the matter was formally referred to the authorities of the kingdom, and they decided to follow the example of Ethelbert. Aicordingly, on Dec. 25, 3()7, upwards of 10,000 received baptism in the waters of the >\vale, at the mouth of the Medway, and thus si-aleil their acceptance of the new faith. Thus successful in the immediate object of the mission, .\ugiistinc rei>aired to France, and was consecrated the first archbp. of Canter- bury by \'irgilius, the metropolitan of Aries. On his return he took up his abode in the uixxien palace of Ethelbert, who retired to Keculver, and this, with an old British or Roman church hard by, became the nucleus of Augustine's cathedral. Another proof of the king's kindness was soon displayed. To the west of Canterbury, and midway between it and the church of St. Martin, was a building, once a British church, but now used as a Sa.xon temple. This Ethelbert, instead of destroy- ing, made over to the archbishop, who dedi- cated it to St. I'ancras, in memory, probably, ■ if the young Roman martyr on the tombs of whose family the monastery on tlie Caelian -Mount at Rome had been built. Round this I building now rose another monastery, at the j head of which Augustine placed one of his companions, Peter, as its first abbot. Before, however, these arrangements were 1 .jmpleted, he sent Peter and Laurence to in- f.irm Gregory of the success of the mission. Gregory was overjoyed at the receipt of the intelligence, and after an interval sent over a reinforcement of fresh labourers for the mis- sion, amongst whom were Mellitus, Paulinus, I and Justus. They brought ecclesiastical vest- ments, sacred vessels, some relics of apostles and martyrs, a present of books, and the pall of a metropolitan for Augustine himself, who was thus made independent of the bishops of France. In a lengthened epistle Gregory sketched out the course which the archbishop was to take in developing his work. London was to be his metropolitan see, and he was to consecrate twelve bishops as suffragans. More- over, whenever Christianity had extended to York, he was to place there also a metropolitan with a like number of bishops under him. As to the British bishops, they were all entrusted to his care, " that the unlearned might be instructed, the weak strengthened by per- suasion, the perverse corrected with author- ity." .Augustine, thereupon, invited the British clergy to a conference on the confines of VVessex, near the Severn, under an oak, long after known as Augustine's oak. Prepared to make considerable concessions, he yet felt that three points did not admit of being sacri- ficed. He proposed that the British church should (i) conform to the Roman usage in the celebration of Easter ; and (2) the rite of baptism ; and (3) that they should aid him in evangelizing the heathen Saxons. The dis- cussi(jn was long and fruitless. At last the archbishop propTdom place in his reign AURELIUS, MARCUS the deaths of Justin Martyr at Rome (a.d. 166), of Polycarp at Smyrna (a.d. 167), of Blandina and Pothinus and the other sufferers at Lyons (a.d. i77)- The last-named year seems indeed to have witnessed an outburst of popular fury against the new sect, and this could not have been allowed to rage without the emperor's sanction, even if there were no special edicts like those of which Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26) directly authoriz- ing new measures of repression. It was ac- cordingly an era of Apologies ; J ustin had led the way under Antoninus Pius, and the second treatise that bears his name was probably written just before his own martyrdom under .\urelius. To the years 177 and 178 are assigned those which were written by Melito, Tatian, Athenagoras, ApoUinaris, and Theo- philus, perhaps also that of Miltiades. The causes of this increased rigour are not difficult to trace, (i) The upward progress of Chris- tianity brought its teachers into rivalry with the Stoic philosophers who up to this time, partly for good and partly for evil, had occu- pied the position of spiritual directors in the families in which there was any effort to rise out of the general debasement. They now found themselves brought into contact with men of a purer morality and a nobler fortitude than their own, and with a strange mysterious power which enabled them to succeed where others failed. Just in proportion, therefore, as the emperor was true to his Stoicism was he likely to be embittered against their rivals. (2) A trace of this bitterness is found in his own Meditations (xi. 3). Just as Epictetus (.\rrian, Epict. iv. 7) had spoken of the " counterfeit apathy " which was the off- spring not of true wisdom, but " of madness or habit like that of the Galileans, " so the emperor contrasts the calm considerate pre- ference of death to life, which he admired, with the " mere obstinacy (Trapdrafis) of the Christians." " The wise man," he says, " should meet death cre.ui'JJs Kal drpaYoj'Sws." The last word has, there seems reason to be- lieve, a special significance. Justin, towards the close of his second Apology, presented to this emperor, had expressed a wish that some one would stand up, as on some lofty rostrum, and " cry out with a tragic voice, Shame, shame on you who ascribe to innocent men the things which ye do openly yourselves. . . . Repent ye, be converted to the ways of purity and wisdom [yiirddiffOe, a-io(ppovia-dTjTe)." If we believe that his acts were in harmony with his words or that what he wrote had come under the emperor's eye, it is natural to see in the words in which the latter speaks so scornfully of the " tragic airs " of the Chris- tians a reference to what had burst so rudely upon his serene tranquillity. (3) The period was one of ever-increasing calamities. The earthquakes which had alarmed Asia under Antoninus were but the prelude to more serious convulsions. The Tiber rose to an unprecedented height and swept away the public granaries. This was followed by a famine, and that by a pestilence, which spread from Egypt and Ethiopia westward. Every- where on the frontiers there were murmurs of insurrection or invasion. The year 166 was long known as the " annus calamitosus," and AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS it was in that year that the persecution broke ..lit and that Justin sulTered. These calami- ties roused the superstition of the great mass of tlie people, and a wild fanaticism succeeded to an epicurean atheism. The gods were wroth, and what had roused their anger but the presence of those who dei\ied them ? • Chrtsiianos ad leones " seemeil the remedy for every disaster. The gods might accept that as a piacular offering. On the other hand, the Christians saw in them signs of the coming judgment, aiid of the end of the world ; ami now in apocalyptic utterances, u.)w in Sibylline books, uttered, half exult- .intly, their preilictions of the impending V >e(cf. TertuU. ad Sca[y. c. 3). All this, of iirse, iiK Teased the irritation against them . the white heat of frenzy (Milman's Hist. „/ Christianity, bk. ii. c. 7). They not only provoked the gods, and refused to join in sacrifices to appease them, but triumphed in their fellow-citizens' miseries. Two apparent exceptions to this policy of repression have to be noticed, (i) One edition of the edict Jr/xb? to KOLvdv r?;? 'Affias, though ascribed by Kusebius (//. E. iv. 13) to Antoninus Pius, purports, as given by him, to come from Aurelius. But the edict is unques- tionably spurious, and merely shows the wish of some Cliristians, at a later stage in the con- flict, to claim the authority of the philosopher in favour of his brethren. (2) There is the decree mentioned by Eusebius (//. E. v. 5) on theauthority of Tertullian (.-1 />()/. c. 5, adScap. C 4, p. 208) and appended to Justin's first Apology, which purports to be addressed to the Senate, informing them how, when he and his army were in danger of perishing for want of water in the country of the Marcomanni, the Christians in his army had prayed to their God, and refreshing rain had fallen for them, and a destroying hail on their enemies, and bidding them therefore to refrain from all accusations against Christians as such, and ordering all who so accused them to be burnt alive. (Cf. Thunderinc; Legion in D. C.B. 4-V0I. ed.) The decree is manifestly spurious. An interesting monograph, M. Aurelius An- toninus als Freund nnd Zeitgenosse des Rabbis Jehudas ben Xasi, by Dr. A. Bodck (Leipz. 1868), may be noticed as maintaining that this emperor is identical with the Antoninus ben I Ahasuerus, who is mentioned in the Talmud I as on terms of intimacy with one of the j leading Jewish teachers of the time. If this I be accepted, it suggests another possible I element in his scorn of Christianity. G. H. I Rendal, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, to Him- I self, Eng. trans, with valuable Intro. (Lond. 1898). [E.H.P.] I Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, a native of ] Bordeaux, was tin- s. .n of Julius Ausonius, a i physician of Cos^ium tlluzus), in Aquitania (Aus. Idyll, ii. 2). His poems, which are I singiilarly communicative as to his private I history, display him to us in riper years both I as student and courtier, professor and prefect, ! poet and consul. At the age of 30 he was I promoted to the chair of rhetoric in his native I city, and not long after was invited to court I by the then Christian emperor V'alentinian I., 1 who appointed him tutor to his son Gratian (Prat/, ad Syagr. 15-26). Ausonius was held AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 9.') I in high regard by the emperor and his sons ; and accomi)anictl the former in his expedition, ; against the Alemanni. It was no doubt i during the residence of the court at Treves at ' this time that he composed his Mosella. From Valentinian he obtained the title of Comes and the oihce. of (Juaestor, and on the accession I of Gratian became successively Prefect of i Latium, Libya, and Gaul, and linally, a.d. 379, was raised to the consulship (Praef. ad Sya^r. 35, etc. ; Epigr. ii. iii., de fast.). After the death of Gratian, a.d. 383, although he seems to have enjoyeii the favour of Theodosius (Praef. ad Theodos.), it is probable that he returned to the neighbourhood of his native city and spent the remainder of his life in studious retirement (Ep. xxiv.). His corre- spondence with Paulinus of Nola evidently belongs to these later years. The date of his death is unknown, but he was certainly alive in A.D. 388, as he rejoices in the victory of Theodosius over the murderer of Gratian at Aquileia {Clar. Urb. vii.). The question of the poet's religion has always been a matter of ilispute. Voss, Cave, Heindrich, Muratori, etc., maintain that he was a pagan, while Jos. Scaliger, Fabricius, Funccius, and later M. Ampere, uphold the contrary view. Without assenting to the extreme opinion of Trithemius, w^ho even makes him out to have held the see of Bor- deaux, we may safely pronounce in favour of his Christianity. The negative view rests purely upon assumptions, such as that a Christian would not have been guilty of the grossness with which some of his poems are stained, nor have been on such intimate terms with prominent heathens (Symmach. Epp. ad .4uso}t. passim), nor have alluded so constantly to pagan rites and mythology without some expression of disbelief. On the other hand, he was not only appointed tutor to the Chris- tian son of a Christian emperor, whom he seems at any rate to have instructed in the Christian doctrine of prayer (Grat. Act. 43) ; but certain of his poems testify distinctly to his Christianity in language that is only to be set aside by assuming the poems themselves to be spurious. Such are (i) the first of his idylls, entitled Versus Paschales, and com- mencing Sancta sahitiferi redeunt solemnia Christi, the genuineness of which is proved by a short prose address to the reader connecting it with the next idyll, the Epicedion, inscribed to his father. (2) The Ephemeris, an account of the author's mode of spending his day, which contains not merely an allusion to the chapel in which his morning devotions were performed (I. 7), but a distinct confession of faith, in the form of a praver to the first two Persons of the Trinity. (3) The letters of the poet to his friend and former pupil St. Paulin- us of Nola, when the latter had forsaken the service of the pagan Muses for the life of a Christian recluse. This correspondence, so far from being evidence that he was a heathen (see Cave, etc.), displays him to us rather as a Christian by conviction, still clinging to the pagan associations of his youth, and incapable of understanding a truth which had revealed itself to his friend, that Christianity was not merely a creed but a life. The letters are a beautiful instance of wounded but not 96 AVrrUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS embittered affection on the one side, and of an attachment ahnost filial tempered by firm religious principle on the other. Paulinus : nowhere chides Ausonius for his paganism ; on the contrary, he assumes his Christianity ; (Paulin. Ep. ii.'iS, 19), and this is still further , confirmed by a casual passage in one of the poet's letters to Paulinus, in which he speaks , of the necessity of returning to Bordeaux in | order to keep Easter (Ep. viii. 9). Ausonius ! was not a Christian in the same sense as 1 Paulinus ; he was one who hovered on the , borderland which separated the new from : the old religion : not ashamed, it is true, to \ pen obscenities beneath the eye and at the challenge of his patron, yet in the quiet of his oratory feehng after the God of the Christians ; convinced apparently of the dogma of the Trinity, yet so little penetrated by its awful mystery as to give it a haphazard place in a string of frivolous triplets composed at the '\ dinner-table (Gryph. Tern. 87) : keenly alive to j natural beauty, and susceptible of the tender- ; est affection, he yet fell short of appreciating in his disciple the more perfect beauty of holiness, and the entire abnegation of self for the love of a divine master. Probably his later Christianity would have disowned his j own youthful productions. i The works of Ausonius comprise : Epigram- I tnalon Liber, a collection of 150 epigrams 1 on all maimer of subjects, political, moral, 1 satirical, amatory ; many of which for terse- , ness and power of sarcasm are only sur- \ passed by those of Martial. Ephemer'is (see j above). Parentalia, a series of tributes to the | memory of those of his family and kindred who had died before him, many of which are full of pathos. The Mosella is a poem in , praise of his favourite river. The Epistolae are, on the whole, the most interesting, be- ' cause the most heartfelt, of the works of Ausonius ; they number 25, addressed to various friends. Those to St. Paulinus of Nola prove that the poet was capable of earnestness when his heart was stirred. 1 The works of Ausonius are published in Migne's Pair. Lat. vol. xix. There is a com- plete ed. by R. Peiper (Leipz. 1886); H. de la V. de Mirmont, Mosella. with trans. (Bor- ' deaux. 1889): also de Mosella (Paris, 1892); Dill. Roman Society (Lond. 1S9S). [e.m.y.] AvitUS, Alcimus Ecdicius, archbp. of Vienne in Xarbonian Gaul ; born about the middle of 5th cent. His father belonged to a familv of senatorial rank. His mother, Audentia, was, in all probability, a sister of M. Maecilius AvitUS, emperor of the West, a.d. 456. The mother of Sidonius Apollinaris the poet, who, in a letter to Alcimus Avitus, speaks of their near relationship and the identity of their youthful pursuits, seems to have been another sister of the same illustrious family (Sidon. Apoll. Ep. iii. I, 61). A student's life at- tracted AvitUS more than did wealth and rank, and at an early age he bestowed his patrimony upon the poor and retired into the seclusion of a monastery close to the walls of his native city. Here he gained so high a reputation for piety and learning that in 490 a.d., upon the death of his father, he was elected to succeed him in the archbishopric. The fame of Avitus rests partly upon his poetry and partly upon AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS the important part he was called to play in the controversies of his time. In 499 Vienne was captured by Gundobald, king of the Burgundian5, who was at war with Clovis, king of the Franks ; and Avitus, as metro- politan of S. and E. Gaul, took the lead in a conference between the Catholic and Ariaa bishops held in presence of Gundobald at Sardiniacum near Lyons (Greg. Turon., ii. 34). The king was convinced by the earnest entreaties and powerful reasoning of Avitus, who addressed several extant letters to him, but could never be induced to recant his errors publicly. His successor Sigismund was converted by Avitus from Arianism. Avitus published treatises in confutation of the Xestorian, Eutychian, and Sabellian heresies ; he also wxote against the Pelagian errors of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and con- verted many Jews who had settled in his diocese (X'enant. Fortun. 1. v. c. 3). From a letter of pope Hormisdas to Avitus [Ep. X.) we gather that he was made vicar apostolic in Gaul by that pontiff ; and in a.d. 517 he presided in this capacity at the council of Epaune (Concilium Epaonense) for the restitution of ecclesiastical discipline in Xar- bonian Gaul. But his influence seems to have extended far beyond the limits of his own diocese, as is shewn by his correspondence with several historical personages at Rome, e.g. Faustus, Symmachus, V'italianus, etc. Fie appears also' to have exerted himself to terminate the dispute between the churches of Rome and Constantinople which arose out of the excommunication of Acacius ; that this was accomplished before his death we gather from his letters (Epp. iii, vii.). Avitus died Feb. 5, 523, and was buried in the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at Vienne, where the greater part of his youth had been spent. The extant works of St. Avitus are as follows : A poem in five books on subjects drawn from Genesis and Exodus : de Origine Mttndi ; de Peccato Originali ; de Sententia Dei ; de Diluvio ; de Transitu Maris Rubri, this is dedicated to his brother Apollinaris, and consists of 261 1 hexameter lines. The first three books might almost have suggested the idea of Milton's Paradise Lost, to which they bear a curious and in many points interesting analogy. A collection of 91 letters, several of historical interest, especially that addressed to Clovis {Ep. xli.) upon his baptism. A homily, de Festo Rogationum, from which the religious obser\-ance of Roga- tion days took its origin. [Mamertus.] A second homily representing the Rogation of the third day, which was discovered in the library of the Grande Chartreuse, and first published in 1717 by Dom Marten (Thesaur. Anecd. p. 47). A homily preached on the occasion of the dedication of a church erected by Maximus, bp. of Geneva. Seventy-two short fragments of homilies, sermons, etc The Collatio Episcoporum contra Arianos coram Gundohaldo rege, first published in d'Achery's Spicilegium, 1655 ff. (tom. iii. p. 304, ed. Paris, 1725). These remains contain much that is valuable with reference to the history, doc- trine, and discipline of the church in the 5th cent. The works of Avitus are contained BABYLAS in Migne's Palrologia, vol. lix. Oeiivres, ed. N. Chevallier (Lyons, 1890). [e.m.v.] BARDAISAN 9^ Babylas (1), bp. of Antioch from a.d. 237 or 238 until his mart\Tdom, a.d. 250 or 251, i under Decius, either by death in prison for the I faith (Ens. H. E. vi. 39). or by direct violence \ (St. Chrys. de St. Bab. c. Gentcs. torn, i.) ; other i authorities — Epiphanius (is.xviii.). Sozo- inen (v. 19), Thcodoret (H. E. iii. 6) — simply calling him mart>T, while St. Jerome (deScriptt. Eccl. liv. Ixii.) gives both accounts in different resurrection life, and those\)f Helvidius on the places. The Ada of Babylas (Acta SS. Jan. perpetual virginity of the Virgin (§ 3, 4), and 24), place his martyrdoni^under Numerian, by { bv his omission of the Son when speaking of memorated by Gennadius (c. 24), who attri- butes to him several works, only one of which he acknowledges to have read — viz. the Libellus de Fide A pologcticus, to satisfy the bp. of Rome of his ortiiodoxy, who regarded him with suspicion on account of his being a native of a country tainted with heresy. What this country was there is nothing in his Libellus to determine. Bachiarius's profession of faith is thoroughly orthodox in all leading points. Its date is fixed approximately at about the middle of the 5th cent., by his denial of the tenets of Origen regarding the soul and the kconfusion(according to Baronius's conjecture ad ann. 253, § 126) with one Numerius, who was an active officer in the Decian persecution (Tillemont, M. E. iii. 729). The great act of i his life was the compelling the emperor Philip, I when at Antioch shortly after the murder of Gordian, to place himself in the ranks of the penitents, and undergo penance, before he was admitted to church privileges (vot^x^' X. of B. (Lond. 1877). A trans, of the epistle is contained in the vol. of the A post. Fathers in the Ante-Xicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, los. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher (Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clar- endon Press with a dissertation by J. H. Backhouse. The best text for English scholars is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by bp. Banner (Lond. 1S91), pp. 237-242. [w.m.] Barsumas (the Eutychian), an archimand- rite of a Syrian monastery, who warmly • L.c. pp. 5, 15. BASILIDES ICI espoused the cause of Eutyches. When, in 448, Eutyches was denounced before the local synod of Constantinople, Barsumas, who was resident in the city, raised a violent opposition to the Eastern bishops. The next year, 449, at the " Robbers' Synod " of Ephesus, Theo- dosius II. summoned Barsumas as the repre- sentative of the malcontent monastic party, and granted him a seat and vote among the bishops. He was the first monk allowed to act as a judge at a general council. Barsumas brought with him a turbulent band of 1000 monks to coerce the assembly, and took a prominent part in the disorderly proceedings, vociferously expressing his joy on the acquittal of Eutyches and joining in the assault on the aged Flavian by the monks and soldiers. The injuries inflicted were so serious that the venerable patriarch died three days after- wards. When with great effrontery Barsumas presented himself at the council of Chalcedon, 451, an outcry was raised against him as " the murderer of the blessed Flavian." He active- ly propagated Eutychian doctrines in Syria and died 458. His disciple, Samuel, carried Eutychianism into Armenia. He is regarded among the Jacobites as a saint and worker of miracles (Assemani, Bibl. Orient, ii. 4 ; Labbe, iv. 103 seq. ; Liberatus, c. 12 ; Tillemont, XV. ; Schrockh, xvii. 451 seq.). [e.v.] Barsumas (the Nestorian), bp. of Nisibis and metropolitan, 435-489, who, after the suppression of Nestorianism within the em- pire, engaged successfully in its propagation in Eastern Asia, especially in Persia. Ban- ished from Edessa by Rabulas, after his desertion of his former friends, Barsumas proved the chief strength and wisdom of the fugitive church. In 435 he became bp. of Nisibis, where, in conjunction with Maanes, bp. of Hardaschir, he established a theological school of deserved celebrity, over which Narses presided for fifty years. Barsumas had the skill to secure for his church the powerful support of the Persian king Pherozes (Firuz), who ascended the throne in the year 462. He worked upon his enmity to the Roman power to obtain his patronage for a development of doctrine which had been formally condemned by the emperor and his assembled bishops, representing to him that the king of Persia could never securely reckon on the allegiance of his subjects so long as they held the same religious faith with his enemies. Pherozes admitted the force of this argument, and Nestorianism became the only form of Christ- ianity tolerated in Persia. Barsumas died in 489, in which year the emperor Zeno broke up the theological seminary at Edessa on account of its Nestorianism, with the result that it flourished still more at Nisibis. Mis- sionaries went out from it in great multitudes, and Nestorianism became the recognized form of Christianity in Eastern Asia. The Malabar Christians are the lineal descendants of their missions. Assemanni, Bibl. Or, iii. i, 16-70 ; Wigram, Hist, of Assyrian Ch. c. viii. [Nes- torian CiurRCH.] [e-V.] Basilides (Bao-tXeiOT/s), the founder of one of the semi-Christian sects, commonly called Gnostic, which sprang up in the early part of the 2nd cent. I. Biography. — He called himself a disciple i02* BASILIDES of one Glaucias, alleged to be an interpreter (ipp.y)v4a) of St. Peter (Clem. Strom, vii. p. 898). He taught at Alexandria (Iran. p. 100 Mass. ; followed by Eus. H. E. iv. 7 ; Epiph. Haer. xxiv. i, p. 68 c ; cf. xxiii. i, p. 62 b ; Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 2) : Hippolytus {Hacr. vii. 27, p. 244) in general terms mentions Egypt. Indeed Epiphanius enumerates various places in Egypt visited by Basilides ; but subsequently allows it to appear that his knowledge of the districts where Basilidians existed in his own time was his only evidence. If the Alexandrian Gnostic is the Basilides quoted in the Acts of the Disputation of Arche- laus and Mani (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. Sac. v. 196 ; see later, p. 276), he was reported to have preached in Persia. Nothing more is known of his life. According to Epiphanius {62 B, 68 D, 69 a), he had been a fellow-disciple of Menander with Saturnilus at Antioch in Syria; but this is evidently an arbitrary ex- tension of Irenaeus's remarks on the order of doctrines to personal relations. If the view of the doctrines of Basilides taken in this article is correct, they afford no good grounds for supposing him to have had a S\Tian educa- tion. Gnostic ideas derived originally from Syria were sufficiently current at Alexandria, and the foundation of what is distinctive in his thoughts is Greek. Several independent authorities indicate the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138) as the time when Basilides flourished. To prove that the heretical sects were " later than the Catholic church," Clement of Alexandria II. c.) marks out early Christian history into different periods : he assigns Christ's own teaching to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ; that of the apostles, of St. Paul at least, ends, he says, in the time of Nero ; whereas " the authors of the sects arose later, about the times of the emperor Hadrian (ko-to} 5^ irepl rovi k.t\. yeydvaffi), and continued quite as late as the age of the elder Antoninus." He gives as ex- amples Basilides, Valentinus, and (if the text is sound) Marcion, taking occasion by the way to throw doubts on the claims set up for the two former as having been instructed by younger contemporaries of St. Peter and St. Paul respectively, by pointing out that about half a century lay between the death of Nero and the accession of Hadrian. Again Eusebius (I.e.) places Saturnilus and Basilides under Hadrian. Yet his language about Carpocrates a few lines further on suggests a doubt whether he had any better evidence than a fallacious inference from their order in Irenaeus. He was acquainted with the refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor ; but it is not clear, as is sometimes assumed, that he meant to assign both writers to the same reign. His chronicle (Armenian) at the year 17 of Hadrian (a.d. 133) has the note " The heresiarch Basilides appeared at these times " ; which Jerome, as usual, expresses rather more definitely. A similar statement without the year is repeated by Jerome, de Vir. III. 21, where an old corrupt reading {mortuns for moratus) led some of the earlier critics to suppose they had found a limit for the date of Basilides's death. Theo- doret (I.e.) evidently follows Eusebius. Ear- liest of all, but vaguest, is the testimony of Justin Martyr. Writing in or soon after a.d. BASILIDES f 145, he refers briefly [Ap. i. 26) to the founders of heretical sects, naming first the earliest, Simon and Menander, followers of whom were still aUve ; and then apparently the latest, Marcion, himself still alive. The probable inference that the other great heresiarchs, including Basilides, were by this time dead receives some confirmation from a passage in his Dialogue against Trypho (c. 35), a later but probably not much later book, where the " Marcians," Valentinians, Basilidians, Sat- urnilians, " and others," are enumerated, apparently in inverse chronological order : the growth of distinct and recognized sects implies at least the lapse of some time since the promulgation of their several creeds. It seems therefore impossible to place Basilides later than Hadrian's time ; and, in the ab- sence of any evidence to the contrary, we may trust the Alexandrian Clement's statement that his peculiar teaching began at no earlier date. II. Writings. — According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. H. E. I.e.), Basilides wrote " twenty-four books (jSifiXia) on the Gospel." These are no doubt the Exegetica, from the twenty-third of which Clement gives an extract (Strom, iv. §§ 83 If., pp. 599 f.). The same work is doubt- less intended by the " treatises " (tractatuum), the thirteenth book of which is cited in the Acta Archelai, if the same Basilides is referred to. The authorship of an actual Gospel, of the " apocryphal " class, is likewise attributed to Basilides on plausible grounds. The word " taken in hand" (iwexf^ipriTav) in Luke i. i gives Origen occasion to distinguish between the four evangelists, who wrote by inspiration, and other writers who " took in hand " to produce Gospels. He mentions some of these, and proceeds " Basilides had even the auda- city " (fjSri 5k fT6\/x77(ref , more than ewex^i^pvcc) " to write a Gospel according to Basilides " ; that is, he went beyond other fabricators of Gospels by affixing his own name (Hom. in Luc. i.). This passage is freely translated, though without mention of Origen's name, by Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. i. i) ; and is pro- bably Jerome's authority in an enumeration of the chief apocryphal Gospels (Com. in Matt, praef. t. vii. p. 3) ; for among the six others which he mentions the four named by Origen recur, including that of the Twelve Apostles, otherwise unknown (cf. Hieron. Dial. cont. Pelag. iii. 2, t. ii. p. 782). Yet no trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere ; and it seems most probable either that Origen misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or that they were sometimes known under the other name (cf. Hilgenfeld, Clem. Rec. u. Hom. 123 ff.). An interesting question remains, in what relation the Exegetica stand to the exposition of doctrine which fills eight long chapters of Hippolytus. Basilides (or the Basilidians), we are told (vii. 27), defined the Gospel as " the knowledge of supermundane things " (17 Tu)v vnepKoa/iiiwv yvujffLs), and the idea of the progress of " the Gospel " through the different orders of beings plays a leading part in the Basilidian doctrine (cc. 25 ff.). But there is not the slightest reason to think that the " Gospel " here spoken of was a substitute for the Gospel in a historical sense, any more BASILIDES than in St. Paul's writings. Indeed several passages (p. 238, 1. 28 ff. ; 239, 42, 58 ; 240, 70 ff. of Miller), with their allusions to Rom. V. 14, viii. 19, 22, 23 ; I. Cor. ii. 13 ; II. Cor. xii. 4 ; Eph. i. 21, iii. 3, 5, 10, prove that the wTiter was throughout thinking of St. Paul's " mystery of the Gospel." Hippolytus states distinctly that the Basilidian account of " all things concerning the Saviour " subsequent to " the birth of Jesus " agreed with that given in " the Gospels." It may therefore be reasonably conjectured that his exposition, if founded on a work of Basilides himself (see § III.), is a summary of the opening book or books of the Exegetica, describing that part of the redemptive process, or of the prepara- tion for it, which was above and antecedent to the phenomenal life of Jesus. The com- ments on the Gospel itself, probably containing much ethical matter, as we may gather from Clement, would have little attraction for Hippolytus. The certain fragments of the Exegetica have been collected by Grabe (Spicil. Pair. ii. 35-43), followed by Massuet and Stieren in their editions of Irenaeus ; but he passes over much in Clement which assuredly has no other origin. A single sentence quoted in Origen's commentary on Romans, and given further on (p. 275), is probably from the same source. In an obscure and brief fragment preserved in a Catena on Job (Venet. 1587, p. 345), Origen imphes the existence of Odes by Basilides and Valentinus. No other \\Titings of Basilides are mentioned. III. Authenticily of the Hippolytean Extracts. — In endeavouring to form a clear conception of the work and doctrine of Basilides, we are met at the outset by a serious difficulty. The different accounts were never easy to harmon- ize, and some of the best critics of the first half of the 19th cent, considered them to refer to two different systems of doctrine. But till 1 85 1 their fragmentary nature suggested that the apparent incongruities might conceivably be due only to the defects of our knowledge, and seemed to invite reconstructive boldness on the part of the historian. The publication of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies in 185 1 placed the whole question on a new footing. Hardly any one has ventured to maintain the possibility of reconciling its ample statements about Basilides with the reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Which account then most deserves our confidence ? Before attempting to answer this question it is well to enumerate the authorities. They are Agrippa Castor as cited by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the anonymous supplement to Tertullian, de Praescriptione. the Refutation of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philaster, and Theodoret, and possibly the Acta Archelai, besides a few scattered notices which may be neglected here. This ample list shrinks, however, into small dimensions at the touch of criticism. Theodoret's chapter is a disguised compilation from previous Greek writers. The researches of Lipsius have proved that Epiphanius followed partly Irenaeus, partly the lost Compendium of Hippolytus, this same work being also the common source of the Latin authors pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster. BASILIDES 103 I Our ultimate authorities therefore are Irenaeus (or the unknown author from whom he took this section of his work), the Compendium of Hippolytus (represented by Epiphanius [part], Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian), Clement and the Refutation of Hippolytus, together with a short statement by Agrippa Castor, and probably a passing reference and quota- j tion in the Acts of Archelaus. It is now generally allowed that the notices I of Clement afford the surest criterion by which \ to test other authorities. Not only does his whole tone imply exact personal knowledge, but he quotes a long passage directly from the 1 Exegetica. Is then his account, taken as a whole, consistent with other accounts ? And does it agree best with the reports of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in his younger days, or with the elaborate picture drawn by Hippolytus at a later time ? This second question has j received opposite answers from recent critics. I A majority have given the preference to j Hippolytus ; while Hilgenfeld (who three years before, in his earliest book, the treatise On the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, pp. 125-149, had described the Basilidian system from the then known records, en- deavouring with perverse ingenuity to shew their virtual consistency with each other) has prided himself on not being dazzled by the new authority, whom he holds to be in effect describing not Basilides but a late development of his sect ; and Lipsius takes the same view. It should be observed at the outset that the testimony of Clement is not quite so homogeneous' as is generally assumed. Six times he criticises doctrines of " Basilides " himself ; eight times he employs the ambiguous plural (oi dirb B., oi d/j.'pi rbv B.). Are we to suppose a distinction here, or is the verbal difference accidental ? Both views might be maintained. The quotation from the Exegetica [Strom, iv. pp. 599 f.) is a piece of moral argument on Providence, wholly free from the technical terms of Gnostic mythology. In the succeeding discussion Clement eventually uses plurals (d . . . tls ainCiv \eyoL — ireTrrcoKev r) virddecns oi'TOiS — u)5 j (pdvai, apparently a misreading for wy aa